Re: [Spud] FW: New Version Notification for draft-hildebrand-spud-prototype-02.txt

Sent from my iPhone (but not top quoted)

> On 03 Mar 2015, at 19:30, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) <jhildebr@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/3/15, 7:28 PM, "Ted Hardie" <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> The draft currently asks whether the Tube ID should be scoped to a single source address or not.  My preference is to stick to a single 5-tuple now, as in the common case, the path may change with a change in source address.
>> 
>> There is still some chance that a changing privacy address in V6-land would not, but let's not optimize for that just now.
> 
> I'm ok with that for now.  The next question then is if the Tube ID adds any value at all?  Is the source sockaddr_in[6] enough?  We could save some bytes.

Sub-port level multiplexing for userspace spud implementations, and inability for someone who knows the 5 tuple to spoof p2a messages. It's a 64-bit strong proof you saw the packet, which is strong enough to make brute force expensive. 32 bits isn't. And 48 bit ints are weird, ieee 802 notwithstanding.

(And if we scope tube ids to 5 tuples always, the we can't carry them across v6 privacy addresses. Otherwise, whither privacy?)

> -- 
> Joe Hildebrand
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spud mailing list
> Spud@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud