IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Fri, 04 October 2024 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@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 85CA3C1D6FA9 for <nasr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 08:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 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, 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=unavailable 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 NidQgJLrfLRr for <nasr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 08:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 734C3C15154E for <nasr@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 08:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE74F1800D; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 11:05:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with LMTP id zbjuZLT5C2-N; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 11:05:04 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1728054303; bh=Ac50yXZ4VIHdnU6f4BbBxTMSZLY7t9Xi+4mCwJzcMqA=; h=From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=HBl4da1F811vC4jdvBz03KnBLVre10EiD4cGWOTAmD7d1cCgytbeFDq4u8fcNhs/5 na7RR5ms7MKoi8Xhblcfm/lNo4ItYjZcfZloDt/UK0ZmmqekIXRNGGFRvGlsR/uzOF M8+q8PkZgg+on2CrPhn66yYBOVspft4lBWvBiRXNWw7VqKncTTF1s9TtONVOYkniw2 cW0a12LtMVIBU9HPImbLRXRdu4Ik5+cTptHdI/s1yPrx1pNWef+cMDyrsRb1KN93c0 OJRtQwUyVqVfC5Ii9fCJNCnaHcdCAEVYwYCqXOuHEcwgGa0IDNZzo8uFH4jbEzRox2 S+M+N24h7h1IA==
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A45991800C; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 11:05:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0ACB11E; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 11:05:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <214266DA-D2DE-4E7B-BB0F-C76D6A0C5B5D@gigix.net>
References: <fe9299737de2469da894ed6e55a53bf1@huawei.com> <5aaf2f9d.1c92.19110d4dea0.Coremail.liupenghui1982@163.com> <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> <bcb2832ba5f24192be84c5c596ae41dd@huawei.com> <214266DA-D2DE-4E7B-BB0F-C76D6A0C5B5D@gigix.net>
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: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2024 11:05:03 -0400
Message-ID: <28589.1728054303@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID-Hash: WNL62SWD3ZQWNHF6J3UEAOXHUBOWAG5Q
X-Message-ID-Hash: WNL62SWD3ZQWNHF6J3UEAOXHUBOWAG5Q
X-MailFrom: mcr@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: junzhang <junzhang1=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, "Liuchunchi (Peter)" <liuchunchi@huawei.com>, =?utf-8?B?5YiY6bmP6L6J?= <liupenghui1982@163.com>, Meiling Chen <chenmeiling@chinamobile.com>, nasr <nasr@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc5
Precedence: list
Subject: [nasr] 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/myWhUh1NL4_ny1psc4Fa07iNaIQ>
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>

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:
    > isn’t this falling close to the concept of “proof of non transit”,
    > i.e. being sure the traffic does _not_ go through a specific path?

Yes, it's exactly that.

    > I think this point was raised in the past but (while interesting)
    > deemed to be too hard to solve (at least now).

    > I think that is a nice question to be asked in a couple of years, when
    > we have implemented whatever solution NASR will design and see if “can
    > we use it to prove (even partially) that traffic did not go here or
    > there?"

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status