Re: [Anima] Is this how BRSKI/IPIP works?

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Sun, 16 July 2017 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC00126DC2 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 10:24:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BZrznPj0fQHN for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 10:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 757FD124D68 for <anima@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 10:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:77]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E4BC58C4B0; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 19:24:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id D1AD7B0C5DA; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 19:24:49 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 19:24:49 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Anima WG <anima@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170716172448.GA23525@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <467b3a9b-6fe0-c01f-6165-18e6e290a28c@gmail.com> <20170706033719.GF14122@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <827f69e7-4730-7bd2-c0ac-987e94adc61d@gmail.com> <20170706070938.GG14122@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <c885cdc9-0ec9-98fd-858d-07c66bb84e25@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c885cdc9-0ec9-98fd-858d-07c66bb84e25@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/cmdFaitRZ9YesJnis3kC6W6jJmE>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Is this how BRSKI/IPIP works?
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 17:24:56 -0000

Sorry, cathing up late with the thread.

Thanks, Eliot. Thats good information. The MAC address based limited
link-local address space is a problem for devices running a proxy.
Do you have an idea about some class of devices that has the issue
that you describe and that could be proxies ?

I know about these crazy LED lightbulbs that actually build a mesh
network. Is that what you where alluding to ? 

But would those type of devices really be able to do all the
security stuff of ANIM/BRSKI ?

Cheers
    Toerless

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:58:45PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Toerless,
> 
> 
> On 7/6/17 9:09 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 04:34:05PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >> It used to be, but the recommendation today is a pseudo-random
> >> value (RFC7217). In any case it's a software choice.
> > brand new recommendations do not equate to be expected
> > standard practice in products. Would be very good to have
> > folks with practical insight into various products to 
> > provide more information.
> On this point, I think it's quite likely that we will see a good number
> of devices fielded that will do a lousy job of PRNG, and so it would be
> inadvisable for them to implement RFC7217, lest they test their DAD code
> in ways not really intended.  I'm not thinking about iPhones here, but
> energy harvesting devices like some light switches, and a bunch of,
> well,... crap.
> 
> The question is whether you should design for these devices.  IMHO "no"
> is a perfectly valid answer, but I'm still a bit skeptical about the
> value of 7217 for these class of devices in any event.
> 
> Eliot