Hi Jeff, You are close but still not quite there.
OSPFv2 had some fields in all packets (LSA is not a packet but a content in a packet) to send a Hash along with the packet for authetication. It was not used in OSPFv3 because of the assumption that all nodes will support ESP and the packets can anyway be encapsulated in the ESP header. This does not however anyway justify why AH should be made a SHOULD. Thanks, Vishwas On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:24 AM, Dunn, Jeffrey H. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I also suggest that the AH requirement be SHOULD, or even better MUST, > for nodes implementing OSPFv3, RFC 2740. This is based on the removal > of the authentication LSA from OSPFv3, which was done with the > expectation that AH would be mandatory. Thoughts? > > Best Regards, > > Jeffrey Dunn > Info Systems Eng., Lead > MITRE Corporation. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Brian E Carpenter > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 4:22 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Security Requirements for IPv6 Node Req summary > > If we write a SHOULD we really do need some guidance > as to when it doesn't apply. Otherwise we make it too > easy for product managers to simply cross it off the list. > How about > > The normal expectation is that a complete IPv6 stack > includes an implementation of ESP. However, it is > recognized that some stacks, implemented for low-end > devices that will be deployed for special purposes > where strong security is provided by other protocol > layers, may omit ESP. > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > University of Auckland > > > On 2008-03-06 09:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Sorry, that was a cut & paste mistake. AH is a MAY. > > > > John > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: ext Vishwas Manral [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: 05 March, 2008 12:12 > >> To: Loughney John (Nokia-OCTO/PaloAlto) > >> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: Security Requirements for IPv6 Node Req summary > >> > >> Hi John, > >> > >> RFC4301 states AH is optional. Is there a reason why we are > >> making it a MUST be supported feature. Below quoting RFC4301: > >> > >> "IPsec implementations MUST support ESP and MAY > >> support AH." > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Vishwas > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 11:46 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> The RFC 4294-bis draft has the following requirement, which comes > >>> from the initial RFC. > >>> > >>> 8.1. Basic Architecture > >>> > >>> Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-4301] MUST > be > >>> supported. > >>> > >>> 8.2. Security Protocols > >>> > >>> ESP [RFC-4303] MUST be supported. AH [RFC-4302] MUST be > >> supported. > >>> We have had a lot of discussion that people basically feel > >> that these > >>> requirements are not applicable and should be moved to SHOULD. I > >>> would say that there is rough WG Consensus on this. Do > >> people feel > >>> if there should be additional text to explain this? > >>> > >>> I suggest that the WG Chairs and our ADs discuss this with the > >>> Security ADs to ensure that this is a reasonable consensus > >> to adopt > >>> - so that we do not run into issues during the eventual IETF/IESG > > >>> review. I am not sure that we can go much further in > >> discussions in > >>> the WG. > >>> > >>> Does anyone have comments on this approach? > >>> > >>> John > >>> > >>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > >>> ipv6@ietf.org > >>> Administrative Requests: > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > >>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > ipv6@ietf.org > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
