Re: [OSPF] [karp] draft-bhatia-karp-ospf-ip-layer-protection-03.txt

Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com> Thu, 31 March 2011 11:54 UTC

Return-Path: <curtis@occnc.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B470C3A6B3C; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 04:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.504
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.095, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JDzJLqO2DjKL; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 04:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E4703A6875; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 04:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by harbor.orleans.occnc.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p2VBsmrB083180; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:54:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@harbor.orleans.occnc.com)
Message-Id: <201103311154.p2VBsmrB083180@harbor.orleans.occnc.com>
To: "Dacheng Zhang(Dacheng)" <zhangdacheng@huawei.com>
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:31:39 -0000." <C72CBD9FE3CA604887B1B3F1D145D05E7DCFDE@szxeml501-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:54:48 -0400
Sender: curtis@occnc.com
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, "karp@ietf.org" <karp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] [karp] draft-bhatia-karp-ospf-ip-layer-protection-03.txt
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:54:28 -0000

In message <C72CBD9FE3CA604887B1B3F1D145D05E7DCFDE@szxeml501-mbx.china.huawei.com>
"Dacheng Zhang(Dacheng)" writes:
>  
> >>It would be better to exchange a session key rather than just a
> >>session ID.  The reason to do this is so as not to use the same
> >>session key over a long period of time and to use the shared or
> >>public/private keys infrequently to provide very little data on which
> >>to try to reverse engineer the keys.
>  
> This draft assumes there is no automatic key management system
> provided. If there is a auto KMP, challenge/response solution will not
> be needed. Do you suggest that we should integrate a key negotiation
> process in OSPF?


This is about a session key.  The session key is determined through
an exchange that makes use of a shared or public/private key.

OSPF has had a clear text password for decades and better
authentication as time goes on that didn't put the key (password) in
the clear.  A shared key already exists so now new key management is
being suggested.

Curtis