Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway
Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> Wed, 04 December 1996 23:10 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa06846; 4 Dec 96 18:10 EST
Received: from portal.ex.tis.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24225; 4 Dec 96 18:10 EST
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id SAA27861 for ipsec-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 18:03:00 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199612042304.SAA02239@amaterasu.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
To: ipsec@tis.com
Subject: Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 03 Dec 1996 23:58:30 EST." <199612040458.XAA18260@raptor.research.att.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2236.849740683.1@amaterasu.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 18:04:44 -0500
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk
[this may be a repeat. Emacs crashed.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>> "Steven" == Steven Bellovin <smb@research.att.com> writes: Steven> mode. To do otherwise is inviting trouble. In fact, I Steven> had thought that was what was done -- no other possibility Steven> had occurred to me. Are you suggesting we need specific wording in the drafts? Steven> There's a second issue that has come up here -- how does Steven> one know which the right firewall is? This is one of the I favour a firewall discovery system. ICMP Admin denied messages can provide the right info. I am not certain if this is workable, since I haven't been able to prototype it all. (And no longer have the funding to even try.) Steven> points I raised at the last IETF meeting; in my opinion, Steven> it's very closely related to the naming issue and the Steven> certificate issue, and we haven't really tackled either of I am retrieving your slides. [how do you get the AT&T logo inside of slidex? Cool.] The problem I see is that there may be different firewalls involved. Both firewalls in parallel and firewalls in series. While this doesn't sound very likely very soon with most current application layer firewalls, Checkpoint has announced state-sharing facilities. It could be a different firewall that is involved each time! Should the encryption state be shared too? Maybe. Maybe not. Firewalls in series are more interesting. I expect to see this. I am seeing this. The best system I can imagine is one where an end node is provided with a certificate, signed by its intended destination stating that "firewall X is a legitimate firewall for me". The local node will also need to be able to recognize a certificate from a local authority saying "firewall Y is a legitimate firewall to get to 0.0.0.0/0" (local node)-------- Y --------- X ------- (end node) The SPKI groups' proposal has the notion of cache certificate that could reduce a series of statements into single self-signed certificate. :!mcr!: | Network security consulting and Michael Richardson | contract programming WWW: <A HREF="http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/People/Michael_Richardson/Bio.html">mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca</A>. PGP key available. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i iQBVAwUBMqW1dtTTll4efmtZAQFF/gH/VzzF8DFKLgRbWYZGUecEkcCFCbiKz/ee bC3GQX0/IKYVIceV9sIV2HYn+bXlb454bzwCuhn90q1ytlVr1kwNNg== =51h3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Whelan, Bill
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Michael Richardson
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Michael Richardson
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway pau
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Whelan, Bill
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway William Allen Simpson
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Michael Richardson
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway David P. Kemp
- Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Ran Atkinson
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Michael Richardson
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Daniel Harkins
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Hilarie Orman
- Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Whelan, Bill
- Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Bill Sommerfeld
- Re[4]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Whelan, Bill
- Re: Re[4]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Bill Sommerfeld
- Re[4]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Karl Fox
- Re[5]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Whelan, Bill
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re[5]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Michael Richardson
- Re: Re[5]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Bob Monsour
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re: Re[5]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Steven Bellovin
- Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Whelan, Bill
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Brian McKenney
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Perry E. Metzger
- Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Brian McKenney
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Ran Atkinson
- Re: Re[5]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Ran Atkinson
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Bill Sommerfeld
- Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Uri Blumenthal
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Daniel Harkins
- Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Naganand Doraswamy
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Steven Bellovin
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Steven Bellovin
- Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Dan Frommer