Subject: Re: [Mobike] issues 18, 15, 6 -- return routability

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 17:03:01 +0300

Hi Francis,

>     - If the specific IP address can be found in the peer's certificate, 
>   you can skip the test
>   
>=> I maintain my proposal to change this into "if the specific IP address
>is already authorized, you can skip the test".
>This is more general (as there can be other ways to authorized an address)
>and more accurate (so it should answer Vijay's concern).
>  
>
Agreed. I think we can close this issue now.

(At first when I saw this I thought there might be an issue
with regards to having clear implementation requirements.
I.e. what is the minimum that an implementation has to do.
But then I realized that the way that we are apparently going
to write this is that the additional authorization mechanisms
are optional, i.e. the minimum you have to do is to always
do the test. It doesn't matter if you support certificates or
xmlconf admin interface or look at the moon's phase...)

--Jari

_______________________________________________
Mobike mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 17:03:31 +0300

James Kempf wrote:

>How about CGA?
CGA helps most with the ownership problem, but we don't
have that issue here since we have shared key material between
the peers, using that will suffice to show we are talking to the
right node.

However, CGA doesn't go all the way towards
ensuring that the peer at the other end is trusted and doesn't
redirect his streams somewhere else. It helps a little, however,
since its hard to spoof someone else's address; but you can
still spoof and bomb a victim network.

Combined with some credit-based monitoring against flooding
attacks you could probably get a very good solution with CGA.
But I'm hoping we can do without it this WG, we are basically
just doing a simple RR test, guided by some policy of when
that is necessasary.

--Jari