Yoav Nir <ynir.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Short version: I think it’s fine. Now let’s see an actual proposal.+1. A desireable property which we do not presently have, is if the amount of work the initiator has to do for step 1 is less than what the responder has to do for step 2, and the responder can cheaply verify the "freshness" of the work. During times of attack, there can be an additional step -1/0 where the responder provides a challenge to the initiator. We have been looking at using puzzle solving to let the responder seperate the wheat from the DDoS-provided-chaff quickly. If a new protocol was quantum resistant, and *also* provided a measure of DDoS resistance, then that would probably significantly improve the industry interest in it. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
