Re: [dhcwg] DHCP hackathon in Prague: SeDHCPv6

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Wed, 07 June 2017 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D67B31294FA for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 11:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 kfTFX5WW2UaY for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 11:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x236.google.com (mail-qt0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10A21128D3E for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 11:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x236.google.com with SMTP id w1so15342597qtg.2 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 11:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=kL8p12X4mgXvDi3jDbS/fYygqaY+Ak8WB02wEcklpRI=; b=EX8ssLC4eyZ+dGleuEgvAdVcZhXaPCrC0A5i2Xw5SUmH1bbALhoWolp6G6URftNbJA RRZcmgb4l76H/FsKiYBkzWgC1NkdcyscQJ4qYMEy3iQ6DsnnyzBEd5ApSKK164Lm/RiJ XW6CXV4X3Lf3Q7LoJoQrzSPxc7YBa6Fn0TBeI1wDTMmf+V1p8Viv/MgLDYucVj8vGrtR Cu28pbAOxnl04iyYhCtPLgUaKuMlonCoOgCVzbHuB7mw9WBguQb/raj+u1rILoaS+WVb C2MHNi1wMZj/vpSFu+X66yerADqjC+sZNu4QV2LDvDexMXw3fgQh9HozbCPsSSZ1pbaw 8DFA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kL8p12X4mgXvDi3jDbS/fYygqaY+Ak8WB02wEcklpRI=; b=b1q8V8Rm/xJPK/4Dnt4tH1gDtbV6GtoeAo9ssHvq1SVkFX8cjQlWcYMRMLRu4xfh4f X9s/DlTJ0bBqL1zAMRqHl1QS9ZcbkQIBwu5Z8jbHL+mcVDaCOXUdS8uEOW3N3y60eXYU DK2XFW0Bda6HwA40JrpVQtSB2Ae68k52TVn8ssWWLbEeN8cKVSzrvkDwHlAM606Yk1fh CFpXqN/wAoanRRicKvFDsUN7qlDRnkYmi6cCKL91Gj7CnwrzdX8K3bL3bWK4kZgIKvlo TUOjKYEQUgt0mVwI97gnteplLkSfukboaCXskmKtG5jFLmDSqnF0Q1nI1AXbvYVnWO7I 6sVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDVRyCJSQ9g3IOTX3rwk0fG23SykVzX7HxaNasOr4D2gUgU1Obs ZcMIjfhWeuS1PGWZhxIF/aZsRKAKdTc9tT8=
X-Received: by 10.237.55.164 with SMTP id j33mr4061874qtb.86.1496859052868; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 11:10:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.237.60.53 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 11:10:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201706052210.v55MAkmV073325@givry.fdupont.fr>
References: <CAJE_bqfT2nDLPsfGWC2-mKdL0QPB9Gc+bik3Gp1VCQWCcmrVRg@mail.gmail.com> <201706052210.v55MAkmV073325@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 11:10:52 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: cG2UPo73dcdBXd8uIvdLghN4xeU
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqeuu+fke2o7n+0O4b1MoP7KLkeF7P0p5uYv_n7kwy1C2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/_vxT5RmpOu-s3IuhW1Ga4dgH1Wk>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCP hackathon in Prague: SeDHCPv6
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 18:10:56 -0000

At Tue, 06 Jun 2017 00:10:46 +0200,
Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> wrote:

> >  I guess there's at least one fundamental open issue to be resolved
> >  before even trying to implement it:
> >  https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg18116.html
>
> => it is more than a fundamental issue: the idea to use RSA encryption
> is simply a deadly bad one...

Could you explain it in more detail?  Is it just about the particular
choice of algorithm (RSA), or is it about the use of asymmetric
(public-key)-based encryption to encrypt DHCPv6 messages in the first
place?  And why is it bad?

If it's the former, (depending on the reason) we might choose a better
algorithm as the default/mandatory.

If it's the latter, we could revise the protocol so it will first
negotiate a symmetric session key using public-key based encryption
and use the session key for subsequent DHCPv6 message exchanges.  That
will be a quite substantial change from the current spec, but I guess
it's not impossible.

Or...

> PS: IMHO the current SeDHCPv6 protocol has no chance to go somewhere.

perhaps so.  But it would help if you could explain why you think so.

> Perhaps we should drop it and restart from the beginning about
> address assignment security, for instance using opportunistic DNSSEC
> with a client embedded first relay? At least it does not need to
> develop a new protocol...

I don't know what "opportunistic DNSSEC with a client embedded
first relay" means, but as we're sort of getting stuck I see even a
drop-and-restart might be an option.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Francis Dupont
<Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> wrote:
>  In your previous mail you wrote:
>
>>  I guess there's at least one fundamental open issue to be resolved
>>  before even trying to implement it:
>>  https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg18116.html
>
> => it is more than a fundamental issue: the idea to use RSA encryption
> is simply a deadly bad one...
>
> Regards
>
> Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
>
> PS: IMHO the current SeDHCPv6 protocol has no chance to go somewhere.
> Perhaps we should drop it and restart from the beginning about
> address assignment security, for instance using opportunistic DNSSEC
> with a client embedded first relay? At least it does not need to
> develop a new protocol...
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg