I agree. Given that the routing protocols under considerations use IPv6 link-local addresses and are confined to a packet exchanges between routers on the same link, this model seems appropriate. Thanks, Acee On Nov 25, 2011, at 3:43 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:
> > Before we decide that we must have an IGP, that it must be cryptographically > secured, and that we have to tackle key distribution for it, I'd like to take > a step or two back from the routing protocol part of the equation. > > First things first, we have to detect that there is a device present, whether > it is a router or not, and if so what kind of router to router border we have > on that link so that we can apply a policy. If that policy allows sending and > receiving of addressing and routing information, from the perspective of the > routing protocol it has every thing it needs to start sending IGP packets in > the clear on that link. In terms of usability, the homenet cannot afford > crypto security or key exchange at every layer. I think we must inherently > trust security from layer 2 or physical, just like we do today between > routers and hosts (or nat-routers and nat-routers for IPv4) in the home. > > In practical terms, I think this means that if two routers are connected with > a physical link, that link should be trusted enough to send packets, in the > clear, which can at least identify what kind of router to router link this is > (e.g., local, ISP, etc.). The same applies if two routers are connected over > a secured wireless L2 link. Similarly, a wired broadband or 3G/LTE wireless > connection to an ISP router in the neighborhood has its own authentication > and policy enforcement happening at L2. > > In terms of UI, if one of those two routers is actually a PC or phone, we > shouldn't worry about the "pairing" issues much as there is enough user > interaction to sort that out (I do think that the state of the art could be > improved here, but that's for the UI wizards make better, not protocol hacks > like us). The most problematic real-world case today that comes to mind would > be in how to establish homenet routers that are connected via a wireless link > should be considered part of the same network. A link+button might be the > best way to make this happen for some routers, but others might prefer a UI > from a PC (e.g., the "airport utility") with passwords. I think the furthest > we can go here is to say that such a link must exist, and what the minimum > level of packet exchange should be allowed before discovering what type of > router-to-router link is present. > > - Mark > > > > On Nov 25, 2011, at 1:46 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 01:27, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: >>> If one is a member of a homenet and an ISP connection already, and one has >>> a blank config, then you might assume that the one with the blank config >>> should join the existing homenet. What if they both have a config on them? >>> What if you're actually merging two separate networks? >> >> I think that's the idea. The user is saying "merge the two networks" in >> this case. >> >> Ok, so it would seem to me that to support that case then we need to either >> a) support multiple simultaneous keys in the IGP or b) provide a mechanism >> to tell a number of homenet routers that "the key to the IGP is changing". >> Both are non-trivial. Any other ideas? >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> homenet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
