IETF Logo Mail Archive

[nasr] Re: 回复: Re: Secure Routing Path Consideration- China Mobile-ietf120

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 04 October 2024 20:26 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: nasr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nasr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A119DC14F74A for <nasr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 13:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IpM_-U-GmKla for <nasr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 13:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AAC6C151063 for <nasr@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 13:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64C411800D; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 16:26:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with LMTP id JJ90ucdG5BiW; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 16:26:33 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1728073593; bh=8ykqh4T8vQS+kDl715fE/xQVmCwS8KvVYL/TyoViXE0=; h=From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=UulOUDb6zPiHtNAlTWfXlF8AIdM1aNMOA5zpwPOU3Q3mVRpBqC2M+37ciZlZRIVXl zUhoCL2kkVZcCZG6hXRnDcvng43xYnew8UnKrm80snmuGWV1Ww20uEuc5L4oElD6P2 4sBx1x5sP3QjoR6EH6Vz1fuXgdibBsQlTyul1OhY94qFxPPzBj4N98he8FeLcAhONF wBn1gCgSNi1Xq2w4C7JyufuzI+keuQQwP8xTB/AF3jzjImGN9StWLGvCR3KQ01gVHo XrGMyxj8VOLL1yclq0VHsqpCDTCorIjzNF+QCRlJ4m2dV2QeQ298byJKW8FnVlHJvJ mQpRvc84zQihw==
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C3D01800C; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 16:26:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 978F54C; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 16:26:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
In-Reply-To: <ZwAhzypyovggw3n0@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <17219.1722798809@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <202408091800065008405@chinamobile.com> <744c46d5.25b2.19149927bcb.Coremail.liupenghui1982@163.com> <ca7257d77709444a914c402f419ad0b0@huawei.com> <630665a9.436d.1914a2e2fc7.Coremail.liupenghui1982@163.com> <c15aa26cea984239baf9d2d96b6ed5a7@huawei.com> <ZvyK4n-BI9S-SF94@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <24175.1727974451@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <Zv7t5QNKYiBXkLYf@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <5925.1727990783@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <ZwAhzypyovggw3n0@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.8+dev; GNU Emacs 28.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0;<'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2024 16:26:33 -0400
Message-ID: <3945.1728073593@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID-Hash: Y3JP2JOG6OXYJH3QOIISWZAWLGFATBUE
X-Message-ID-Hash: Y3JP2JOG6OXYJH3QOIISWZAWLGFATBUE
X-MailFrom: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "Liuchunchi(Peter)" <liuchunchi@huawei.com>, =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3Fus-ascii=3FB=3FPT91dGY tOD9CPzVZaVk2Ym1QNkw2Sj89=3F?= =?us-ascii?Q ?=3D?= <liupenghui1982@163.com>, Meiling Chen <chenmeiling@chinamobile.com>, "nasr@ietf.org" <nasr@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc5
Precedence: list
Subject: [nasr] Re: 回复: Re: Secure Routing Path Consideration- China Mobile-ietf120
List-Id: Network Attestation for Secure Routing <nasr.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nasr/Smy2XVuxx62YYKPrtT8gtCnpN5A>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nasr>
List-Help: <mailto:nasr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:nasr-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:nasr@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:nasr-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:nasr-leave@ietf.org>

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
    >> What NASR can do is provide assurance that when you have such links, that:
    >> a) there are no stealth routers in the path.

    > Depending on the technologies we emply in NAS, your could still have a stealth L2
    > device though. Which by the way is a common way how firewalls operate.

yes there can always be rogue L2 devices, but:

1) MACSEC, as you mentioned.
2) QIRG, which is basically 2^MACSEC or something.

    >> b) that the two sides of each QIRG link are operating nominally.

    > Right.

MACSEC won't protect us from L2 copy-and-crack-later (worth repeating that a lot).
QIRG could.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status