Re: [lisp] RFC 6830

Using the LISP mapping system to pass keys for use in the data plane is 
beyond what is in our current charter.
Once we clear that blocking items, it would be reasonable to discuss this.

Personally, I find arguments other than the shared anonymity pool to be 
more persuasive as to the value of this.  So, again personally, I would 
suggest including other motivations when we get to the discussion of 
working on the topic.

Yours,
Joel

On 8/21/13 10:30 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>      > From: Nick <nick@lupine.me.uk>
>
>      >> The impetus for developing it was the Snowden PRISM/XKeyscore
>      >> disclosures - currently, a privacy-conscious ISP can't do much to
>      >> prevent traffic (especially headers) between themselves and another
>      >> privacy-conscious ISP from being snooped on.  Use of RLOCs instead of
>      >> EIDs in the outer IP header means that individual users share an
>      >> anonymity set which is the size of the number of users sharing that
>      >> RLOC. When both source and destination are obscured this way, it
>      >> becomes less "alice and bob are communicating", and more "someone in
>      >> chicago is talking to someone in toronto".
>
> This sounds quite interesting (although the denizens of certain large
> buildings might be grinding their teeth).
>
> All, does this fit within our current charter? If not, something to keep in
> mind if/when we redo the charter.
>
>      >> Obviously, preserving this anonymity requires the inner IP headers to
>      >> be encrypted
>
> Wonder if it's worth doing the payload, too? Obviously, that would cost more
> computing, but...
>
>      > I'm reasonably ignorant of the processes and politics of RFCs and
>      >  things.
>
> That's OK, we have plenty of experts on that... :-)
>
>       Noel
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>

Re: [lisp] RFC 6830 - possible extension.