Re: [smartpower-interest] Smart Grid Architecture Committee meeting 17 February

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

The document I forwarded is at http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP01InternetProfile 
. As to NERC supporting documentation, you would have to ask them.

On Feb 17, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Joe DiAdamo wrote:

> Fred, is the full document from NERC publically available?
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Fred Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I am forwarding in case you folks have not seen this. It is the  
> proposed IP architecture from NERC, which is a US regulatory body.
>
> One important statement it makes is:
>
> A final note is that this document will not make the distinction  
> between IP version 4 or version 6 for the purpose of analysis or  
> standardization.  The point is simply to support IP with the version  
> number left to be an implementation detail determined by the utility  
> or service provider that would install the AMI network.  That being  
> said, any competent network planner can easily do the math - many  
> investor-owned utilities have literally millions of electric meters  
> installed (a distinct challenge in a version 4 environment), with  
> this "volume problem" being compounded by the presence of other  
> devices including some quantity of electric vehicles as potential  
> roaming users in the future.  That means the utility would either  
> have to use IPv4 very judiciously and replicate private IP space  
> over and over again, or move to IPv6 and address a greater number of  
> devices uniquely.
>
>
> This is not as strong a statement re IPv6 as the IETF and ARIN have  
> proposed, but is at least a sensible one in the near term.
>
> The architecture doesn't say a lot about security, but does say this:
>
> The C12.22 protocol also includes AES-128 security mechanisms.  
> Additional IP transport security protocols may be provided to  
> enhance and preserve the upper layer security provisions but not as  
> a substitute of such.
>
> Personally, I think that's an inadequate statement. The key issues  
> are in identification, authentication, authorization, and  
> confidentiality where appropriate. It would be really nice if http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mcgrew-fundamental-ecc-01 
>  were approved as "suite b", and the architecture could specify the  
> use of "suite b cryptographic standards". For those that don't know  
> what that means, it refers to the use of elliptic curve public key  
> cryptography without the IPR considerations that have crippled the  
> industry's ability to use it. AES, while a very worthwhile  
> technology, is symmetric key, which means in the AMI that the key is  
> not in fact secret - it is known by and communicated among at least  
> two parties. The lack of a key management infrastructure is a  
> problem, which I would entertain useful proposals for.
>
>
> The architecture focuses, surprisingly, not on the use of TCP/UDP  
> and IP (v4 or v6), but on the place of the ANSI C12 series  
> management applications. Given that those are in the most recent  
> filing moved from "mandatory" to "should be considered", that is  
> interesting. One thing that would help, perhaps, is a description of  
> how NetConf could be used instead, and an openly-defined XML-based  
> schema (from OASYS perhaps?) that could be exchanged using it. I'm  
> not going to write that, but would entertain submissions.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> smartpower-interest mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartpower-interest
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> Joe DiAdamo,P. Eng.
> [e-mail]
> 416-300-1558

http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF