Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-mahesh-bfd-authentication

["Dacheng Zhang" <[e-mail]>]

Great! Let us update that draft and discuss it in the next IETF meeting.
^_^

Cheers

Dacheng

在 15-11-25 上午9:33， "Gregory Mirsky" <[e-mail]> 写入:

>Hi Dacheng,
>HW became more capable and we, one hopes, wiser. Perhaps it's time to
>re-visit our options.
>
>	Regards,
>		Greg
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dacheng Zhang [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 11:12 PM
>To: Gregory Mirsky; Marc Binderberger; Reshad Rahman (rrahman);
>[e-mail]; Stephen Farrell
>Cc: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-mahesh-bfd-authentication
>
>
>
>在 15-11-24 下午2:46， "Gregory Mirsky" <[e-mail]> 写入:
>
>>Dear All,
>>I'd like to share comment by Security AD Stephen Farrell on a work that
>>is directly related to BFD, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf
>>(hope it is OK to raise security awareness in BFD community):
>>
>>> - 2.1.1, is there any chance of moving on from the "Keyed SHA1"
>>> 
>>> from RFC5880 to e.g. HMAC-SHA256 for this? We're generally trying to
>>> get that kind of transition done as we can and moving to use of a
>>> standard integrity check rather than a more home-grown one has some
>>> benefits. The HMAC-SHA1-like thing you're doing is still probably ok,
>>> (though could maybe do with crypto eyeballs on it as there may have
>>> been relevant new results since 2010) but future-proofing would
>>> suggest moving to HMAC-SHA256 if we can. (I can imagine such a change
>>> might require a new document, but am asking anyway:-)
>>> 
>>> GIM>> The fact is that we're bound by what is defined in RFC 5880.
>>
>>I wonder for how long though, that's now a five year old RFC.
>>Assuming it takes a few years for new deployments to pick up new
>>algorithms, isn't it time that a whole bunch of algorithm choices were
>>revisited?
>>
>>> There was a proposal to strengthen BFD security BFD Generic
>>>Cryptographic
>>>Authentication<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bhatia-bfd-crypto-auth
>>>-03
>>>> but the document had expired.
>>
>>Pity that.
>
>I am one of the co-author of that draft. We didn’t try to update document
>because we got the feedback from the group that the influence on the
>performance is a big concern. That is why I raised the question in the
>last email whether it is a good time for us to re-consider the usage of
>aha-2 in BFD.
>>
>