Re: [Stackevo-discuss] [gaia] 5G: It's the Network, Stupid

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Thu, 17 December 2015 10:18 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Original-To: stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41A481A883C; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 02:18:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oastSy9obVO1; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 02:18:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-out5.uio.no (mail-out5.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 244921A8845; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 02:18:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-mx2.uio.no ([129.240.10.30]) by mail-out5.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1a9Vdu-0004Wz-Ol; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:18:38 +0100
Received: from boomerang.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.68.135]) by mail-mx2.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) user michawe (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1a9Vdu-0000WF-D1; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:18:38 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <82AB329A76E2484D934BBCA77E9F5249A6835717@Hydra.office.hd>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:18:36 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9EB6564A-45B0-4164-8D78-0737BBAA0C9F@ifi.uio.no>
References: <82AB329A76E2484D934BBCA77E9F5249A682F744@Hydra.office.hd> <CAEeTej+pHehyX7+qteogQcAkCcJKYhZoQKStuXGmAzWRj1_rXQ@mail.gmail.com> <82AB329A76E2484D934BBCA77E9F5249A683460E@Hydra.office.hd> <9E220CD1-5C20-4568-8A8D-6461C317BE11@ifi.uio.no> <82AB329A76E2484D934BBCA77E9F5249A6835717@Hydra.office.hd>
To: Dirk Kutscher <Dirk.Kutscher@neclab.eu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 9 msgs/h 2 sum rcpts/h 13 sum msgs/h 3 total rcpts 36553 max rcpts/h 54 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 5661BA6D88474325754B7997327D9A6E187F0C4F
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 129.240.68.135 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 2 total 8812 max/h 17 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stackevo-discuss/E1MZoC9fjDIBpwrmYs1ePS0k-5g>
Cc: "icnrg@irtf.org" <icnrg@irtf.org>, gaia <gaia@irtf.org>, "stackevo-discuss@iab.org" <stackevo-discuss@iab.org>, Jon Crowcroft <jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk>, "5gangip@ietf.org" <5gangip@ietf.org>, "marnew@iab.org" <marnew@iab.org>, "dtn-interest@irtf.org" <dtn-interest@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Stackevo-discuss] [gaia] 5G: It's the Network, Stupid
X-BeenThere: stackevo-discuss@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Stack Evolution Discussion List <stackevo-discuss.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/stackevo-discuss>, <mailto:stackevo-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/stackevo-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:stackevo-discuss@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stackevo-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo-discuss>, <mailto:stackevo-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:18:43 -0000

> On 17 Dec 2015, at 11:10, Dirk Kutscher <Dirk.Kutscher@neclab.eu> wrote:
> 
>>> Regarding security, unless we want to introduce “trusted middleboxes”,
>> 
>> Why not?
> 
> No e2e security.
> 
> That may be OK for some use cases, like IoT or home GWs, but could be less convincing for accessing public network services -- for example, if you extend the network with multiple hops of device-to-device communication, data mules etc.

Hm.... just because you trust them to do certain tasks for you doesn't mean you trust them with everything?  We trust routers to forward our data and can even set the DSCP for them  (in theory - yes i know the rtcweb/DSCP story and DART)

And you can still have e.g. e2e encryption and e2e authentication on top, right?  So what is the real trust problem here?