Re: [Gen-art] [dhcwg] [mif] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-container-00

2009-04-20 Thread Hui Deng
some level of generic network characteristics benefit for the user.
one example could be that routing metric may need to be updated
to align with various kind of access technologies.

-Hui

2009/4/17 Giyeong Son g...@rim.com:
 Again as I mentioned, in order to prepare or build an efficient routing
 policy and to select an efficient connection/interface, it would be
 necessary to identify, classify and/or prioritize underlying network
 characteristics or information of the attached networks.

 In addition, as many network characteristics which are essential to be
 used for simultaneous use of multiple interfaces are not generic forms
 (e.g. SSID only for 802.11), these network characteristics may require a
 mechanism to make them be associated with generic (formed) elements used
 for routing policy preparation and routing decision. Therefore, if MIF
 can provide an efficient guideline or mechanism for associating, it
 would be really amazing.

 I believe, the current IP network related protocols and standardized
 technologies may not be enough to support that on multiple interface
 network environment.

 I think each vendor, carrier, service provider and/or technology, which
 utilizes or supports simultaneous use of multiple
 connections/interfaces, may have their own proprietary mechanism in
 terms of gathering of network characteristics of each interface/access
 network technology (e.g. WiFi, GPRS, CDMA, Bluetooth, etc.), their
 mapping mechanism with generic formed elements, routing policy and
 decision mechanisms with different IP based service networks owned by
 different service providers or different IP network enabling core
 networks owned by different carriers.

 So, the problem Ted and Ralph are addressing seems to be just one of
 issues (but only for WiFi network environments) in terms of network
 characteristic that may be necessary to be considered during selection
 of an efficient connection/interface from multiple candidates.

 Giyeong

 -Original Message-
 From: Ralph Droms [mailto:rdr...@cisco.com]
 Sent: April 16, 2009 1:32 PM
 To: Ted Lemon
 Cc: Giyeong Son; Hui Deng; dhc WG; gen-art@ietf.org; mif; i...@ietf.org;
 black_da...@emc.com
 Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [mif] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-container-00

 Yup ... there is currently no way to provide authenticated, meaningful
 identification of the network(s) to which a host is attached.  Without
 that identification, it's pretty hard to write any reasonable policies.

 - Ralph

 On Apr 16, 2009, at 1:26 PM 4/16/09, Ted Lemon wrote:

 On 2009/4/13 Ralph Droms rdr...@cisco.com wrote:
 For example, would a host process
 information received from a Starbucks network over its 802.11
 interface differently from information received a home network over
 the 802.11 interface?

 It's even more fun than that.   How do we reliably know that we are
 at Starbucks, and not at home?   The SSID?   That's not an
 authenticated token.   Currently Windows makes security decisions
 based on the SSID.   You could call this the best answer they could
 come up with for a problem with no good answers.   Or you could say
 that it instills the user with a false sense of security.   Either
 way, it's not something I'd be comfortable seeing in a protocol spec,
 so if the client is in fact to make decisions as you've
 suggested, we'd need a secure way of doing this.   I don't know
 enough about WPA Enterprise to know if there's a bidirectional
 authentication going on there - from the UI perspective it looks like
 it's one-way.



 -
 This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential 
 information, privileged material (including material protected by the 
 solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public 
 information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended 
 recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, 
 please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your 
 system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this 
 transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art


Re: [Gen-art] [dhcwg] [mif] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-container-00

2009-04-16 Thread Ted Lemon

On 2009/4/13 Ralph Droms rdr...@cisco.com wrote:

For example, would a host process
information received from a Starbucks network over its 802.11
interface differently from information received a home network over  
the 802.11 interface?


It's even more fun than that.   How do we reliably know that we are at  
Starbucks, and not at home?   The SSID?   That's not an authenticated  
token.   Currently Windows makes security decisions based on the  
SSID.   You could call this the best answer they could come up with  
for a problem with no good answers.   Or you could say that it  
instills the user with a false sense of security.   Either way, it's  
not something I'd be comfortable seeing in a protocol spec, so if the  
client is in fact to make decisions as you've suggested, we'd need a  
secure way of doing this.   I don't know enough about WPA Enterprise  
to know if there's a bidirectional authentication going on there -  
from the UI perspective it looks like it's one-way.


___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art


Re: [Gen-art] [dhcwg] [mif] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-container-00

2009-04-16 Thread Ralph Droms
Yup ... there is currently no way to provide authenticated, meaningful  
identification of the network(s) to which a host is attached.  Without  
that identification, it's pretty hard to write any reasonable policies.


- Ralph

On Apr 16, 2009, at 1:26 PM 4/16/09, Ted Lemon wrote:


On 2009/4/13 Ralph Droms rdr...@cisco.com wrote:

For example, would a host process
information received from a Starbucks network over its 802.11
interface differently from information received a home network over  
the 802.11 interface?


It's even more fun than that.   How do we reliably know that we are  
at Starbucks, and not at home?   The SSID?   That's not an  
authenticated token.   Currently Windows makes security decisions  
based on the SSID.   You could call this the best answer they could  
come up with for a problem with no good answers.   Or you could say  
that it instills the user with a false sense of security.   Either  
way, it's not something I'd be comfortable seeing in a protocol  
spec, so if the client is in fact to make decisions as you've  
suggested, we'd need a secure way of doing this.   I don't know  
enough about WPA Enterprise to know if there's a bidirectional  
authentication going on there - from the UI perspective it looks  
like it's one-way.




___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art


Re: [Gen-art] [dhcwg] [mif] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-container-00

2009-04-16 Thread Giyeong Son
Again as I mentioned, in order to prepare or build an efficient routing
policy and to select an efficient connection/interface, it would be
necessary to identify, classify and/or prioritize underlying network
characteristics or information of the attached networks. 

In addition, as many network characteristics which are essential to be
used for simultaneous use of multiple interfaces are not generic forms
(e.g. SSID only for 802.11), these network characteristics may require a
mechanism to make them be associated with generic (formed) elements used
for routing policy preparation and routing decision. Therefore, if MIF
can provide an efficient guideline or mechanism for associating, it
would be really amazing. 

I believe, the current IP network related protocols and standardized
technologies may not be enough to support that on multiple interface
network environment. 

I think each vendor, carrier, service provider and/or technology, which
utilizes or supports simultaneous use of multiple
connections/interfaces, may have their own proprietary mechanism in
terms of gathering of network characteristics of each interface/access
network technology (e.g. WiFi, GPRS, CDMA, Bluetooth, etc.), their
mapping mechanism with generic formed elements, routing policy and
decision mechanisms with different IP based service networks owned by
different service providers or different IP network enabling core
networks owned by different carriers.

So, the problem Ted and Ralph are addressing seems to be just one of
issues (but only for WiFi network environments) in terms of network
characteristic that may be necessary to be considered during selection
of an efficient connection/interface from multiple candidates.

Giyeong  

-Original Message-
From: Ralph Droms [mailto:rdr...@cisco.com] 
Sent: April 16, 2009 1:32 PM
To: Ted Lemon
Cc: Giyeong Son; Hui Deng; dhc WG; gen-art@ietf.org; mif; i...@ietf.org;
black_da...@emc.com
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [mif] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-container-00

Yup ... there is currently no way to provide authenticated, meaningful
identification of the network(s) to which a host is attached.  Without
that identification, it's pretty hard to write any reasonable policies.

- Ralph

On Apr 16, 2009, at 1:26 PM 4/16/09, Ted Lemon wrote:

 On 2009/4/13 Ralph Droms rdr...@cisco.com wrote:
 For example, would a host process
 information received from a Starbucks network over its 802.11 
 interface differently from information received a home network over 
 the 802.11 interface?

 It's even more fun than that.   How do we reliably know that we are  
 at Starbucks, and not at home?   The SSID?   That's not an  
 authenticated token.   Currently Windows makes security decisions  
 based on the SSID.   You could call this the best answer they could  
 come up with for a problem with no good answers.   Or you could say  
 that it instills the user with a false sense of security.   Either  
 way, it's not something I'd be comfortable seeing in a protocol spec, 
 so if the client is in fact to make decisions as you've
 suggested, we'd need a secure way of doing this.   I don't know  
 enough about WPA Enterprise to know if there's a bidirectional 
 authentication going on there - from the UI perspective it looks like 
 it's one-way.



-
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential 
information, privileged material (including material protected by the 
solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public 
information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended 
recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, 
please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your 
system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission 
by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art