[mif] draft-mglt-mif-security-requirements-01
"Hampel, K Georg (K Georg)" <georg.hampel@alcatel-lucent.com> Thu, 05 April 2012 14:04 UTC
Return-Path: <georg.hampel@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDBEF21F86D6 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 07:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.548
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.950, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 qB0Y0Ybuby33 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 07:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73EBF21F8680 for <mif@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 07:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.12]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q35E43r3025918 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <mif@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 09:04:03 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.111]) by usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q35E43dV015055 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <mif@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 09:04:03 -0500
Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSA2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.124]) by USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.111]) with mapi; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 09:04:03 -0500
From: "Hampel, K Georg (K Georg)" <georg.hampel@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "mif@ietf.org" <mif@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 09:04:01 -0500
Thread-Topic: draft-mglt-mif-security-requirements-01
Thread-Index: Ac0TNPQZQ0CpnUoGT6K1U2zAyTFnUA==
Message-ID: <154773479ED2314980CB638A48FC4434893D3BCA@USNAVSXCHMBSA2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_154773479ED2314980CB638A48FC4434893D3BCAUSNAVSXCHMBSA2n_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.12
Subject: [mif] draft-mglt-mif-security-requirements-01
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:04:05 -0000
Daniel, all, I read draft-mglt-mif-security-requirements-01. Just to make sure I got the essence: The draft proposes to extend IPsec/MobIKE so that a multihomed host can simultaneously sustain multiple paths to the same security gateway or app server using the *same* SA. MobIKE would have to be upgraded to dynamically add/delete such paths. Purpose: Such an extension would avoid the need to establish separate SAs for each path. Is that correct? Regards, Georg
- Re: [mif] draft-mglt-mif-security-requirements-01 Hampel, K Georg (K Georg)
- [mif] draft-mglt-mif-security-requirements-01 Hampel, K Georg (K Georg)
- Re: [mif] draft-mglt-mif-security-requirements-01 Daniel Migault
- Re: [mif] draft-mglt-mif-security-requirements-01 Daniel Migault