Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication/etc. in wireless networks
Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 25 August 2011 17:43 UTC
Return-Path: <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id D862C21F8C22 for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.407
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.192,
BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jZyH2sOzOi4A for
<mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com
[74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 043B821F8C1E for
<mext@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyg8 with SMTP id 8so2132760wyg.31 for <mext@ietf.org>;
Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=ZJiGD7p9XVGN0/jcjBbzi9DiAv7wWmLodePIy6G2SPU=;
b=bOizQtugFz7qXP8slOq7zN2fUxo9v3fAKzSs5CSysM6jH3l4438X9P2v1a+UOYSGl0
F/CfWDvwZWMN096kUUQTvhtokkH9YezIf4XQ7zgv+X2jhT0br7kVZ4Ee8LGnkjOUmax0
TUfzzJ66buVkKShy3Y1enBEL4FOBWJdvMlhOk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.28.4 with SMTP id k4mr44340wbc.21.1314294286335;
Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.141.79 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E554BAA.9080409@computer.org>
References: <4E554BAA.9080409@computer.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:44:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CAE_dhjtz5ue1noQwzb5gcCFa1gq_4EY-hxMhQRL07JAQNZq3bg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
To: charliep@computer.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: mext <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication/etc. in wireless
networks
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mext>,
<mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>,
<mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:43:34 -0000
Charlie, I am not sure I understand what is missing in MIPv6; a MN and an HA can already mutually authenticate using EAP, and this is incidentally what 3GPP leverages on, together with the EAP-AKA method. What is missing? --julien On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Charles E. Perkins <charliep@computer.org> wrote: > > Hello folks, > > It's now 2011. Mobile IP was standardized late in > 1996, after work had already been started nearly > ten years before. Over two decades! -- and regardless > of lip service to fixed/mobile convergence we still > don't have seamless mobility in user devices across > heterogeneous media, and standards organizations > (notably 3GPP) are not properly taking advantage of > what Mobile IP can do. The losers are the end-users, > which means all of us. > > There are many reasons for this, but one of the > main reasons has to do with authentication at the > access network. EAP in various forms is being > utilized for this purpose, and Mobile IP is not, > even though there has never been any reported > failure of the RFC 5944 or RFC 4285 or RFC 6275 > (to my knowledge). Moreover, unless there is > something wrong with the cryptography that also > has not been reported, these authentication methods > enable _mutual_ authentication between the network > and the client, not just client authentication. > > In order for Mobile IP to enable the real promise > of high performance heterogeneous networking, we > have to do some more work. I would like to initiate > some more discussion about this. DMM is interesting > in its own right, but it's not at all the whole > story. Moreover, with proper design, it is likely > the supposed burden of signaling to the home agent > can be substantially reduced. As one simple example, > if handovers are accomplished locally between trusted > access agents (routers, 802.11 access controllers, ...) > then the actual timing of tunnel redirection from the > home agent becomes much less critical. This is also > intricately intertwined with authentication. > > If the Home Agent were recognized as a robust security > appliance, then it could naturally sit on the network > boundary as an IP-addressable device. Mobile IP > authentication could become the primary means of > validating user access, instead of an afterthought > to enable IP-address preservation after all the heavy > lifting has been done a lower levels. > > I would like to propose that in this working group we > should go about making this happen. It seems to be > important, and undeniably aligned with our working > group responsibilities. > > Regards, > Charlie P. > > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >
- [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication/etc… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication… Alper Yegin
- Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication… Julien Laganier
- Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication… Pete McCann
- Re: [MEXT] [!! SPAM] Re: Well-known problem with … Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] [!! SPAM] Re: Well-known problem with … Alper Yegin
- Re: [MEXT] [!! SPAM] Re: Well-known problem with … Pete McCann
- Re: [MEXT] [!! SPAM] Re: Well-known problem with … Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] [!! SPAM] Re: Well-known problem with … Pete McCann
- Re: [MEXT] [!! SPAM] Re: Well-known problem with … Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] [!! SPAM] Re: Well-known problem with … Jong-Hyouk Lee
- Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication… Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication… Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] [!! SPAM] Re: Well-known problem with … Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] [!! SPAM] Re: Well-known problem with … Pete McCann
- Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication… Julien Laganier
- Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication… Pete McCann
- Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication… Julien Laganier
- Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication… Pete McCann
- Re: [MEXT] [!! SPAM] Re: Well-known problem with … Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication… Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication… Julien Laganier
- Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication… Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication… Julien Laganier
- Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication… Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication… Julien Laganier
- Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication… Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] doubting a 3GPP MIP, because requires … Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] [!! SPAM] Re: Well-known problem with … Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] [!! SPAM] Re: Well-known problem with … Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] [!! SPAM] Re: Well-known problem with … Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [MEXT] [!! SPAM] Re: Well-known problem witha… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] [!! SPAM] Re: Well-known problem with … Julien Laganier
- Re: [MEXT] [!! SPAM] Re: Well-known problem with … Pete McCann