Re: (IPng) out-of-band key management is like virtual ...
solo@BBN.COM Wed, 08 March 1995 13:57 UTC
Received: from interlock.ans.net by nis.ans.net with SMTP id AA18674 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <archive-ipsec@nis.ans.net>); Wed, 8 Mar 1995 08:57:34 -0500
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA39636 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for ipsec-out@ans.net); Wed, 8 Mar 1995 08:36:41 -0500
Message-Id: <199503081336.AA39636@interlock.ans.net>
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Wed, 8 Mar 1995 08:36:41 -0500
To: perry@imsi.com
Cc: "Housley, Russ" <housley@spyrus.com>, ipsec@ans.net, solo@BBN.COM
Subject: Re: (IPng) out-of-band key management is like virtual ...
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 07 Mar 95 18:13:24 -0500. <199503072315.AA10955@interlock.ans.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 1995 08:33:56 -0500
From: solo@BBN.COM
Perry (et al.), In the discussions of SAID "structure" there are a couple of cases which I haven't been able to reconcile. I agree that in general, SAIDs are assigned by the destination for unicast traffic. This doesn't seem to always translate to multicast traffic. The secured PDU being sent to a multicast group contains a single SAID. Further, the membership in a such a group may be dynamic over time. Consequently, it seems that in some cases, I (a recipient) will join a secure multicast group and be TOLD the SAID. This is no longer a destination assigned SAID (it is also unclear whether at group establishment the SAID is "negotiated" among all parties or assigned by the group "master"). In such a case, absent any structure to the SAID, it is possible that it will collide with an SAID I have assigned. I thought it was this case that argued for some bit (either "originator assigned" or "multicast group") in the SAID. Without such a designator, how do you expect to handle these cases? Dave > Date: Tue, 07 Mar 95 18:13:24 EST > From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com> > Subject: Re: (IPng) out-of-band key management is like virtual ... > > In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 07 Mar 1995 14:46:01." > <9502077946.AA794616361@spysouth.spyrus.com> > "Housley, Russ" says: > > >As clearly described in the drafts, SAIDs are assigned at the pleasure > > >of the entity controlling the destination address. The us of "entity > > >controlling" rather than "destination host" was deliberate -- it was > > >there because of multicast. > > > > I agree that the SAID must me assigned by the entity controlling the > > destination address. In fact, this is exactly my point. Key management > > will do something different to establish a security association for two > > IPSP peers than to establish a multicast security association. > > > > The IPSP processing may well be identical once those security associations > > are in place. > > If you agree with that, then you are necessarily supporting the point > that structured SAIDs are not needed for multicast. > > .pm
- Re: (IPng) out-of-band key management is like vir… Housley, Russ
- Re: (IPng) out-of-band key management is like vir… Perry E. Metzger
- Re: (IPng) out-of-band key management is like vir… solo
- Re: (IPng) out-of-band key management is like vir… Perry E. Metzger
- Re: (IPng) out-of-band key management is like vir… Charles Lynn
- Re: (IPng) out-of-band key management is like vir… Perry E. Metzger