IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TICTOC] The draft for IPsec synchronization security

Jack Kohn <kohn.jack@gmail.com> Fri, 03 December 2010 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <kohn.jack@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tictoc@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tictoc@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D7763A6973 for <tictoc@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 10:11:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.652, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jU4iHnGXn9gK for <tictoc@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 10:11:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA6073A6975 for <tictoc@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 10:11:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwn40 with SMTP id 40so12002325iwn.31 for <tictoc@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 10:12:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kGYv2PeZOoRho9SdDSM/b7BAE8tgZ3fF68F5k2A6voE=; b=XLP23bH2ysUvsMx6ftAV/Rg63ZeiuuxCDbkqSFzz/lyrjVvHOk0C7JOHqOwvcC4bqy /ffrIVvHhD48f2x6fVnS8kFbzVjcaWAJiG1u1HVEb1P1TmC+QlA8UmHSxETFVo5KtifM Db3FIKhi7PoU886GkvpUr7kCr7coqj4MyyOa4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=TnS1tJmgs9sIu+tnkuzdhlHmTe/v/+X8j46Lz034N9kj7FaUaWxeAAVrg/GtHNeEbr WgOeZIaAKaY3lNNfAxC9bz//tgcFLG3ZVD2mcy4rgP3WtBsswjR8CMge8/VEGoJO9BpY u1HriSwiPIlg64ffHiu5ygrfpBzqWqrDV1dFY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.17.205 with SMTP id t13mr2110037iba.190.1291399939537; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 10:12:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.206.133 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 10:12:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CB45EB047BD43041BF1F4CC7D6DB21BF05DF6B26@sjmail2.symmetricom.com>
References: <AANLkTi=M+JWv+REtvHMkc1+sAWZeSuWS1LiKNeqWV4CS@mail.gmail.com> <00a401cb8492$da18ef70$51106f0a@china.huawei.com> <AANLkTikeXMTm+kMt4E-gC8ygyxCxoYwCTPqrpqWG8b+S@mail.gmail.com> <CB45EB047BD43041BF1F4CC7D6DB21BF05DF6B26@sjmail2.symmetricom.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 23:42:19 +0530
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=EXtnP5YO_qPEGk_yO3_K0qwXF2dVB7AcADaG0@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jack Kohn <kohn.jack@gmail.com>
To: Greg Dowd <GDowd@symmetricom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: tictoc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TICTOC] The draft for IPsec synchronization security
X-BeenThere: tictoc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Timing over IP Connection and Transfer of Clock BOF <tictoc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc>, <mailto:tictoc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tictoc>
List-Post: <mailto:tictoc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tictoc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc>, <mailto:tictoc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 18:11:05 -0000

Any pointers on where i can get the LTE standard for femto?

I was under the impression that this would also be used by 1588 for
delivering a solution for frequency distribution, when we need to
provide security between the master and the boundary clocks, etc.

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Greg Dowd <GDowd@symmetricom.com> wrote:
> I believe the goal was not to suggest a method for adding security but a method for handling the security imposed by the LTE standard for femto.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tictoc-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tictoc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jack Kohn
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 4:49 PM
> To: Xie Lei
> Cc: tictoc@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [TICTOC] The draft for IPsec synchronization security
>
> Xie,
>
> Is there a reason why you cant use the Security mechanism described in
> Annex K of IEEE std 1588-2008?
>
> Jack
>
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Xie Lei <xielei57471@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Jack
>>
>> Thanks for your information, i had discussed with RFC5840 authors in IETF
>> 79# meeting. It is possible to use RFC5840 to fulfill this synchronization
>> requirements. I will follow the progress and provide more information to
>> Tictoc group.
>>
>> BR
>>
>> Rock
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Jack Kohn
>> To: xielei57471@huawei.com ; tictoc@ietf.org
>> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 12:30 PM
>> Subject: RE: The draft for IPsec synchronization security
>> Xie:
>>
>> While i understand your motivation to secure the timing packets, you
>> really dont need the extensions that you have defined in the below
>> draft. You must look at RFC 5840 that extends ESP and see how that can
>> be used for achieving the same functionality as you desire.
>>
>> Jack
>>
>>> Hi Yaakov and all
>>> Huawei has submitted one draft for IPSec synchronization security, you can
>>> find it in following link
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-xu-tictoc-ipsec-security-for-synchronization-00.txt
>>>
>>> We also attach one discussion document in this email, i hope we can
>>> present it in IETF Beijing meeting.
>>>
>>> BR
>>> Rock
> _______________________________________________
> TICTOC mailing list
> TICTOC@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email