Re: Failure of AH (was: Manual PMTUD [was ...rfc2460bis-08])

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Christian Huitema <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > On 3/19/2017 11:39 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
    >> The failure of AH across the Internet has nothing to do with the AH
    >> construct itself.  It has to do with the failure to establish any kind
    >> of useable Internet-wide trust infrastructure anchored in ownership of
    >> IP addresses.

    > It also has to do with the undesirability of using IP addresses as long
    > term identifiers. The concept of "trust infrastructure" implies some
    > degree of stability in the identifiers. This is exactly what you don't
    > want if you are concerned with privacy.

That's a good additional reason why we can't build long-term trust on IP
addresses.   Short-term trust (for durations of minutes to a few hours)
does not seem to be as big an issue.  Afterall, we do this all the time
with TCP SYN/ACK three way handshake.

And, notice that I didn't actually say that... I said "in ownership of IP
addresses"... I would prefer to be able to map IP address-->ASN, and
then see how that could map to an operator's public key.  And then
throw in v6PD and homenet users, and...

(hey, stop laughing! A crypto-geek can dream, can't he?)

The point is that AH for protection of headers is dead because we don't have
one of those.  And if you aren't protecting headers, then you can/should use
ESP. (or as people actually do: TLS)

So I'm just not worried about breaking AH.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-