Subject: [MOBILE-IP] Two new Internet Drafts about key distribution

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 02:02:02 -0800

Hello folks,

I have just sent in two new Internet Drafts about key distribution
to the mobile node.  The Registration Keys draft is a revision of
an old draft from three years ago that is intended to work with
Binding Updates to enable smooth handovers.  The Generalized Key
Distribution draft specifies three generalized extensions, using
the general extension format suggested in MIER.

These drafts are available on my web page:
        http://www.iprg.nokia.com/~charliep/txt/regkey/regkey.txt
        http://www.iprg.nokia.com/~charliep/txt/genkey/genkey.txt

The Registration Keys draft represents quite a departure from
the earlier version.  I have attempted to make it fairly well
contained by including a certain amount of material about elliptic
curve key exchange.  While I believe the material is all correct,
and I've checked it over quite a few times, I also must point
out that I do not claim expertise in this area.  Thus, I expect
that some improvements will be suggested over the next weeks
before Adelaide.  I can make yet another revision for this
draft before the deadline if need be.

Lastly, the Registration Keys draft cites the recent "opaque-data"
draft by Pat Calhoun et.al.  I expect that there will be some
overlap of interest between these two drafts and that their
technical content should remain mutually coordinated.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:57:46 -0500

I have been a MobileIP lurker for some time.  I am now delurking.

I have discussed bringing up the following with the co-chairs and ADs:

In Dec '98 I started out studying why IPsec was not delivering security
services to the protocols that needed privacy and/or authentication.  My
first opinion was it took too long; later I realized that a fundamental
design of IP was central to IPsec and MobileIP's complexity.  That is the
confounding of naming and routing.  I set out to design a namespace that
would decouple the internetworking and transport layers (BTW, I am on the
IRTF NSRG).  The current result is documented in my Host Identity Payload
drafts:

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-01.txt
  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-moskowitz-hip-01.txt
  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-moskowitz-hip-impl-00.txt

I will be the first to admit that these drafts need improvement in
presentation.  But in brief, by creating a cryptographically based host
namespace that is statistically globally unique with 3 representations, I
am able to use ESP 'transport layer' in place of the internetworking layer
(either IPv4 or IPv6) for the transport binding.

This provides full mobility of both initiators and responders (responders
need a rendezvous server for initial contact).  Mobility does not need
Dynamic DNS, only DNSSEC (to address man-in-the-middle attacks).

HIP and its ESP can traverse any addressing realm boundaries (NATs, IPv6/4
gateways).

I can appreciate that this is radical thinking, but I ask that people here
look over HIP and send me comments.  Has HIP met its goals?  Does it offer
real end-to-end services?  Can it reduce the complexity in the network and
even the end systems?

I am working on the next set of drafts.  I will not be in Adelaide, but
might be able to get someone to present HIP at one of your sessions if
there is interest.