IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: (with COMMENT)

"Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <darlewis@cisco.com> Wed, 12 September 2018 00:16 UTC

Return-Path: <darlewis@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D074130F47 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, T_TVD_FUZZY_SECURITIES=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TMOKLp3WhNVx for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABD2B12F1A6 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1770; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1536711366; x=1537920966; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=SBAwvpZmLAODblX/y4eAFGx2P00wCe8Cfbm5+XjRh+4=; b=FpI69lhbbAXzOiwwCmyI5Di7812k5CzrBJApkvjKpQ8ZPgjh5VNV/Jnm IwWf1qYMWmyaV73UJ4m1qsCuMg8ZvoMmx1Bmc0pSLi2IuAzqqI4Bm9YYJ zGQAFHqN2duizrbCz1k0Ob0h6Rj75xIRiEIcrsi8w27jg1pngtqwoiOG6 k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CgAgAhWphb/4kNJK1bGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNOgWQoCoNoiBOMJoFoJYM9kn2BeguEbAIXgxkhNBgBAgEBAgEBAm0ohTgBAQEBAgEjEUUFCwIBCBgCAiYCAgIwFRACBA4FG4MGgXoIpTWBLooHgQuJXBeBQT+BEicME4JMh38xgiYCnBEJApAEF451k3ECERSBJR04gVVwFWUBgkGCJRcRjgZvjQmBHgEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.53,362,1531785600"; d="scan'208";a="449016105"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Sep 2018 00:16:05 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com (xch-rcd-017.cisco.com [173.37.102.27]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w8C0G5vU013548 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 12 Sep 2018 00:16:05 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-018.cisco.com (173.37.102.28) by XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com (173.37.102.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 19:16:05 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-018.cisco.com ([173.37.102.28]) by XCH-RCD-018.cisco.com ([173.37.102.28]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 19:16:05 -0500
From: "Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <darlewis@cisco.com>
To: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
CC: "Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <darlewis@cisco.com>, Albert Cabellos <albert.cabellos@gmail.com>, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHUSi3LZEX62SFjO0CB0vQumKdzBw==
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 00:16:04 +0000
Message-ID: <F2D6F75B-A703-4675-BD3A-11B19CE10480@cisco.com>
References: <153661454107.16021.14181238567935017697.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <82C0DF7A-E661-48DF-ABCE-7C830E875E70@gmail.com> <f51f97af-5b4c-ac7f-b239-bc39088a263a@joelhalpern.com> <CAMMESsxdBxCCdAVL5LR-QcknucoKayNFV7mp=jGX+txxVz4fog@mail.gmail.com> <8A78EF35-B0E4-43EC-A6B7-EB7DED60210F@gmail.com> <CAGE_Qexi9hkxEVfkLwy85N94mLbF8xLJ9ycgLgTctN2=ZC5M5A@mail.gmail.com> <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C8884057A0@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com>
In-Reply-To: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C8884057A0@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.19.253.181]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <17595E594C5A2247B9259F3DE7D27C84@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.27, xch-rcd-017.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/q8fTlO0J-0aPFHGjd7bVILR5taY>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 00:16:09 -0000


> On Sep 11, 2018, at 2:07 PM, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <db3546@att.com> wrote:
> 
> I’m wondering on another approach. If I recall correctly (my memory may have faded), we had optimism that lisp-sec would be done by now, and so had waited on it. But it is not. Looking at the reference to it in lisp-intro, it is in the security section as “and the lightweight authentication mechanism proposed by LISP-Sec [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] reduces”. I wasn’t involved at the time, but I’m wondering why a “proposed mechanism” merited a normative reference in an informational document?
>  

It’s my recollection that there was feedback from the security directorate (as well as many individuals beyond that area) that the existing, specified, mechanism of map-request(nonce)/map-reply security (essentially the use of a nonce analogous to DNS) was not sufficiently secure to be deployed on an Internet control plane protocol. LISP-SEC was a lightweight response to the requirement of providing authentication of the sender / replier conversation that did not require a PKI based solution.  LISP, to date, has been deployed for many use cases beyond internet route-scaling, some of which take advantage of LISP-SEC, and some of which have no need for its benefit.

Regards,

-Darrel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email