Re: [Autoconf] Security (Was: Re: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal.)

["Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[e-mail]>]

Jari
> I did not mean to imply that SEND would directly be a good fit for
your 
> problem. In fact, I was not thinking of SEND's router authorization
part 
> at all. I was thinking of SEND host's ability to create addresses 
> securely and defend them from other hosts, all without any 
> pre-configuration, or reliance on routers.

But one thing that the almost interminable autoconf discussions have
made clear is that ad hoc nodes are routers, and if a SEND-like
mechanism requires much of its routers, it would require much of the
routers in an ad hoc network, i.e. all the nodes.

For security we are also, unfortunately, defending against Machiavelli,
not just against Murphy. If you pick an address, and I'm a bad guy,
observing you using the address is a reason for me to use that address,
not a reason to avoid it.

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************