Re: [Architecture-discuss] Re: 8+8 history (Re: Sources of architectural change)

[David Meyer <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:09:44PM +0200, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Tony Li wrote:
> 
> >There is much more to it than that.  Basically, GSE was the last and  
> >best effort to create an architecture that separated
> >the address into both a 'locator'  (where is the host) and  
> >'identifier' (the ESD in the draft). 
> 
> I think some modern architectures such as HIP appear
> to do a more thorough job and consider the whole problem. (Or at
> least a larger problem, I think HIP NAT support needs improvement.)
> 
> >Security would not cover the locator and security associations would  
> >only be between ESDs.
> 
> There's a lot more to security than allowing IPsec SAs to work over
> communications in such architectures. Marcelo pointed to some
> issues in his mail; you'd probably want to avoid other people hijacking
> your communications etc.
> 
> I wanted to see if GSE had dealt with these issues, but here's what
> the security consideration section from the GSE draft says:
> 
> >17. Security Considerations
> >
> >  More than can be imagined.

	Please review

	 http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/99nov/I-D/draft-ietf-ipngwg-esd-analysis-05.txt

	and

	 http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/papers/esd-secure.txt


	Dave

_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss