[Hipsec-rg] Hierarchical HITs

andrew at indranet.co.nz (Andrew McGregor) Thu, 22 January 2009 04:10 UTC

From: "andrew at indranet.co.nz"
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:10:31 +1300
Subject: [Hipsec-rg] Hierarchical HITs
In-Reply-To: <002b01c97c41$5ad55a60$670c6f0a@china.huawei.com>
References: <002b01c97c41$5ad55a60$670c6f0a@china.huawei.com>
Message-ID: <6E14FE72-1FFF-4B21-840C-59C0061FFC7E@indranet.co.nz>

But you are just describing the internal workings of a certificate. So  
why dos the HIP certificates work not suffice?

On 22/01/2009, at 16:27, Xu Xiaohu <xuxh at huawei.com> wrote:

> [please skip the previous email]
>
> Oleg.
>
> Does every host in HIP architecture need a FQDN? (btw, there  were  
> similar
> threads in RRG,see  http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/rrg/2008/msg02050.html 
> )
>
> If the access control is based on HIT, the firewall maybe need to  
> maintain
> an ACL with a huge amount of flat HIT entries. If the access control  
> is
> based on domain name , it will need
> to do lookup to resolve each HIT to FQDN in order to determine the  
> domain
> name.  Both of them mean a huge burden on firewalls. Besides, the  
> latter
> will aslo introduce a DDoS attack risk.
>
> With hierarchical HIT(Adminstrative Domain(AD) ID+ Hash (public key 
> +AD ID)),
> the firewall can simply do access control based on the AD ID.
>
> Xiaohu
>
>> -----????-----
>> ???: Xu Xiaohu [mailto:xuxh at huawei.com]
>> ????: 2009?1?22? 11:19
>> ???: 'Oleg Ponomarev'; 'Zhang Dacheng'
>> ??: 'hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com'
>> ??: re: [Hipsec-rg] Hierarchical HITs
>>
>>
>>> Once again, we already have hierarchical identities (e.g.
>>> domain names) and I do not see the reasons to introduce yet another
>>> hierarchical space.
>>> Of course, this is just my opinion.
>>
>> Oleg.
>>
>> Does every host in HIP architecture need a FQDN? (btw, there
>> were similar threads n RRG,see
>> http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/rrg/2008/msg02050.html)
>>
>> If the access control is based on HIT, the firewall needs to
>> maintain an ACL with a huge amount of flat HIT entries. Both
>> of them mean a huge burden on firewalls. Besides, the former
>> will aslo introduce a DDoS attack risk., when a firewall
>> enforces access control based on domain name , it will need
>> to do lookup to resolve each HIT to FQDN in order to
>> determine its domain name.
>>
>> With hierarchical HIT (Adminstrative Domain(AD) ID+ Hash
>> (public key+AD ID)), the firewall can simply do access
>> control based on the AD ID.
>>
>> Xiaohu
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec-rg mailing list
> Hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
> https://listserv.cybertrust.com/mailman/listinfo/hipsec-rg