Agree, your proposal sounds reasonable to me. Thanks.
-Qin
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2018年8月26日 1:41
收件人: Qin Wu; lsr@ietf.org
主题: Re: New Version Notification for
draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00.txt
Hi Qin,
I believe it is a significant security exposure to include the actual keys in
IGPs. What I was suggesting was to include an identifier of the key to be used.
Thanks,
Acee
On 8/24/18, 10:56 PM, "Qin Wu" <bill...@huawei.com> wrote:
Hi, Acee:
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2018年8月24日 22:23
收件人: Qin Wu; lsr@ietf.org
主题: Re: New Version Notification for
draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00.txt
Hi Qin,
On 8/23/18, 11:03 PM, "Qin Wu" <bill...@huawei.com> wrote:
Hi, Folks:
draft-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support-07 has been resubmitted to LSR as
draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00 based on Chairs' suggestion.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00
This draft define IGP extension for PCEP security support,
1.TCP AO which has been published as RFC5295.
2.PCEP over TLS which has been published as RFC8253 recently.
One issue raised by chair is shared key support for TCP-AO, how do you
get shared key?
I guess my point was is that if you are distributing shared keys, you
probably know whether or not TCP-AO is supported. Having said that, possibly
the draft should include some sort of key-id for TCP-AO or TLS usage. For
example, the key-chain name from RFC 8177. We don't need to decide now.
[Qin]: RFC5088 " OSPF Protocol Extensions for PCE discovery" said:
"
PCE discovery information is, by nature, fairly static and does not
change with PCE activity. Changes in PCE discovery information may
occur as a result of PCE configuration updates, PCE
deployment/activation, PCE deactivation/suppression, or PCE failure.
Hence, this information is not expected to change frequently.
"
So security capability as part of PCE discovery information should also be
static.
RFC5926 section 3.1 said:
"
In TCP-AO's manual key mode, this is a key shared by both peers, entered
via some interface to their
respective configurations. The Master_Key is used as the seed for the KDF.
"
My impression TCP-AO relies on manual installation for shared key. But TLS
has key management protocol to exchange shared key,e.g., one defined in RFC4279.
We can either negotiate shared key for TCP-AO in the PCE discovery phase or
during PCE configuration phase. For TLS usage, this is not needed, in my
opinion.
To support shared key negotiation during PCE discovery phase, we need to
define a IGP PCED Sub-TLV for TCP-AO, I am not sure this is allowed according
to RFC5088,
It looks this new IGP PCEP TLV is a companion Sub-TLV for PCE-CAP-FLAGS
Sub-TLV.
If adding a new Sub-TLV is allowed, we can add algorithm identifier and key
chain name,key identifier altogether.
If negotiating shared key during PCE configuration phase, it is clearly
beyond scope of this draft.
Thanks,
Acee
we believe to support TCP-AO, RFC5296 should also be implemented, which
provide PSK and associated ciphersuit.
Let us know if you have any other opinion?
-Qin
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org]
发送时间: 2018年8月24日 10:57
收件人: Daniel King; wangzitao; Dhruv Dhody; wangzitao; Diego R. Lopez;
Diego Lopez; Qin Wu
主题: New Version Notification for
draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00.txt
A new version of I-D, draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Qin Wu and posted to the IETF
repository.
Name: draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support
Revision: 00
Title: IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in
the PCE discovery
Document date: 2018-08-23
Group: Individual Submission
Pages: 6
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00.txt
Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support/
Htmlized:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00
Htmlized:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support
Abstract:
When a Path Computation Element (PCE) is a Label Switching Router
(LSR) participating in the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), or even a
server participating in IGP, its presence and path computation
capabilities can be advertised using IGP flooding. The IGP
extensions for PCE discovery (RFC 5088 and RFC 5089) define a method
to advertise path computation capabilities using IGP flooding for
OSPF and IS-IS respectively. However these specifications lack a
method to advertise PCEP security (e.g., Transport Layer
Security(TLS),TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO)) support capability.
This document proposes new capability flag bits for PCE-CAP-FLAGS
sub-TLV that can be announced as attribute in the IGP advertisement
to distribute PCEP security support information.
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
The IETF Secretariat
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
