[rrg] Some concerns about ILNP

[Xu Xiaohu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ran,

If I understand your ILNP correctly, it is much silimar with the GSE.  If so, I'm wondering whether the issues with the GSE described in draft-ietf-ipngwg-esd-analysis  have been successfully solved by the ILNP, e.g., identifier authentication issue. It seems that  the answers to these hard issues have not been mentioned in your slides.

I noticed the following statement in your slides, do you believe that 62-bit field is long enough to prevent the security of the binding of the 62-bit hash value and the public key from being easily compromised once you use the HIP/CGA like ideas to deal with the identifier authentication issue?

*********************************
If scope bit is local, have 62 bits that can be anything:
‣ Cryptographically Generated Identifier (a la CGA proposals)
‣ Hash of a public-key (a la HIP)
‣ Pseudo-randomly generated (a la IPv6 Privacy AutoConf)
**********************************

Best regard,

Xiaohu