IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal.

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Wed, 30 June 2010 10:07 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2FBD3A67D0 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 03:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.353
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.353 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.701, BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9IkMic-91HO8 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 03:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04E863A695A for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 03:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CB232CED4; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:07:31 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id InW8sEqSrBm9; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:07:31 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00DF72CC62; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:07:30 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <4C2B1762.1070600@piuha.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:07:30 +0300
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
References: <BFD8FF22-FD36-436E-9985-7BFA2E234081@gmail.com> <201006290803.34192.henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0333F14C@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <4C2A723E.3020806@piuha.net> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0333F6EC@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
In-Reply-To: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0333F6EC@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal.
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:07:22 -0000

Christopher,

Just a brief comment for the moment. My current thoughts in ad hoc
nedworks relate to security. And I think the interactions of security
and address configuration will turn out to be critical. There are
numerous solutions to address configuration that turn out to be
pointless when combined with security configuration issues. I'm
interested in more than just "assume all nodes have a shared secret
X unknown to anyone else".


Absolutely. To begin with, its kind of pointless to talk about "ad hoc" (as in "unplanned") and then suddenly assume there was lots of preconfiguration.

I am hopeful though that there are clever ways to address the biggest security issues without causing too much pain. For instance, FCFS type of address and prefix allocation in the large IPv6 address space seems amenable for some proof-of-ownership solution.

Jari

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email