Re: [sidr] WGLC draft-sidr-rpki-rtr - take 2?

Sandra Murphy <Sandra.Murphy@sparta.com> Fri, 03 June 2011 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <Sandra.Murphy@cobham.com>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 388A8E06BF for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 13:43:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.726
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.726 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.127, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jRVjEf0xLp7f for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 13:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from M4.sparta.com (M4.sparta.com [157.185.61.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B40BE0670 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 13:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Beta5.sparta.com (beta5.sparta.com [157.185.63.21]) by M4.sparta.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id p53Kgo9H020406; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 15:42:51 -0500
Received: from nemo.columbia.ads.sparta.com (nemo.columbia.sparta.com [157.185.80.75]) by Beta5.sparta.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p53KgpUn014580; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 15:42:51 -0500
Received: from SMURPHY-LT.columbia.ads.sparta.com ([157.185.81.134]) by nemo.columbia.ads.sparta.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 3 Jun 2011 16:42:51 -0400
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 16:42:50 -0400
From: Sandra Murphy <Sandra.Murphy@sparta.com>
To: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <D1D8138DDF34B34B8BC68A11262D10790F6233E006@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.64.1106031624560.2148@SMURPHY-LT.columbia.ads.sparta.com>
References: <4DAF44AC.8060408@isi.edu> <E3076C4C-F27C-40A8-A033-2EBB8C39A3D2@cisco.com> <4DAF796C.7010807@isi.edu> <BANLkTi=Oc-fEKOYCRQqM97wPxSSXjrdTRw@mail.gmail.com> <409BDC5C-FE86-444A-BC0D-6DA00E7BF0F3@isi.edu> <BANLkTikLi2p7UipJ!TRSQqVOL6GkLn=j9iA@mail.gmail.com> <F0FABE61-FC1D-45ED-A21D-ED7A1228A997@isi.edu> <01eb01cc0325$6e4fd260$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4DB592B3.3090805@isi.edu> <033e01cc05a8$0a82f160$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4DB9A456.3060709@isi.edu> <BANLkTikg18FV5H0bOdOfWMzpTcm_B__EVQ@mail.gmail.com> <017b01cc13ff$0cb6da40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <BANLkTink82qvhge6rRhqt5+h-2mEkKBMhA@mail.gmail.com> <m21uzwr3tw.wl%randy@psg.com> <BANLkTimPnMfE1ii=6uwAckoFY0yUU=w43g@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinu8pxxCj4cdJzbS3z5h=8=s+U3Gw@mail.gmail.com> <D1D8138DDF34B34B8BC68A11262D10790F6233E006@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se>
X-X-Sender: sandy@nemo.columbia.sparta.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jun 2011 20:42:51.0078 (UTC) FILETIME=[CE3BFE60:01CC222E]
Cc: "stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "sidr@ietf.org" <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC draft-sidr-rpki-rtr - take 2?
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 20:43:02 -0000

On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Uma Chunduri wrote:

>
>
....

>
> True, privacy through SSH is overkill but strong AUTH is *critical*, I feel:
>   - TCP-MD5 should not be considered (as it is any ways deprecated and it's MD5)
>   - TCP-AO has only slight advantage as it has less overhead than ipsec-AH even when
>     deployed with manual keys
>   - but it's better if it is "MUST support authentication of nodes with TCP-AO or ipsec-AH" because

Just to be sure:

Did you understand the part about implementations of TCP-AO and ipsec-AH 
not being available at present?

I.e., you recognize this forces a delay in implementation of the protocol 
(and accept the consequent impact on deployment of the RPKI)?

--Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair


>     as both support
>           - strong auth algos
>           - algo agility
>           - can be deployed with manual and auto key management
>            (auto key probably required eventually, once with lot of connections at
>             cache/global RPKI/server side and for automatic key
>             changes periodically)
>           - key changes for existing sessions
>
>    One would get flexibility with this.
>    Also Section 7 (page 16)
>    "It is assumed that the router and cache have exchanged keys out of band by some reasonably secured means"
>    This will be still applicable but only if TCP-AO/ipsce-AH are deployed with manual keys.
>
> 2 cents,
> -Uma
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>