Re: Machine Identity

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Thu, 28 February 2008 12:41 UTC

Return-Path: <discuss-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 081FB3A6E3B; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:41:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.548
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.701, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
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 LkizoPMAsqtP; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:41:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C81DB3A6DE1; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:41:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54EC73A6DD6 for <discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:40:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 Rzcao46MwjxI for <discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:40:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C0023A6E2F for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:40:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (demetrius.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 338358A6E5; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:40:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21224-05; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:40:41 +0100 (CET)
Received: from elstar.local (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 002078A4A3; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:40:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id E26934D5818; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:40:38 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:40:38 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Miika Komu <miika@iki.fi>
Subject: Re: Machine Identity
Message-ID: <20080228124038.GA8852@elstar.local>
References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <20080228112318.GA23196@nic.fr> <20080228114656.GD8439@elstar.local> <Pine.SOL.4.64.0802281405360.10117@kekkonen.cs.hut.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.4.64.0802281405360.10117@kekkonen.cs.hut.fi>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.3.3 (20050822) at jacobs-university.de
Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 02:12:56PM +0200, Miika Komu wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 12:23:18PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>>
>>> An example of an Use Case is given by IKE (RFC 4306). Section 3.5
>>> lists several possible identities for a machine, and there is not a
>>> clear unique way to define this identity (identities like ID_IPV4_ADDR
>>> are typically a poor way to define a machine on the network).
>>
>> After several years in network management (where the first thing you
>> like to have are stable unique identities), I have come to the
>> conclusion that it is hopeless to search for such a generally useful
>> identity.  What works is all very much dependent on the purpose and
>> the specific situation, as others have pointed out before.
>>
>> And even if someone manages to come up with a good solution, people
>> sooner or later will try to circumvent it since in several situations
>> it is a feature and not a bug to be able to do dirty things with
>> identities.
>
> Hi Juergen,
>
> sorry, but I disagree with your opinion. Please give some pointers to 
> publications that back up your conclusion.

I don't know what you disagree with. 

- If it is my statement that it is hard to find a stable unique
  identifier that is generically useful, then simply proof me wrong
  by example.

- If it is my statement that people will find reasons to muddle around
  with the uniqueness and stability property of whatever identifer you
  invent? I guess this is hard to proof so lets call it a hypothesis.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>