Subject: [arch-d] Symmetric-key Based Addresses (SBA)

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:55:40 -0700

All,
We are trying to have a discussion in Montreal on the problem of IP
address authorization and how this relates to proxy neighbor discovery
and IP mobility protocols, in the context of AAA-based systems. SEND
solves the problem on the local link that a node resides in. However, IP
mobility protocols like Mobile IP and NETLMM require an entity (e.g.,
Home Agent) to defend the IP address of a node in proxy mode. There is
also the issue in NETLMM that when an AR needs to perform mobility for a
given node, it must have a means of authorizing the IP address of the
node before it does that. Protocols like FMIPv6 require address
authorization prior to binding a key for a given MN with its CoA. CGAs
don't really solve the problem in such cases. In AAA-based systems, we
can achieve this type of IP address authorization using addresses
generated with symmetric keys. 

Towards such an approach, we have an initial draft on Symmetric-key
Based Addresses
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narayanan-pba-01.txt). The
draft does not provide the complete solution or architecture, but is
seen as a starting point for discussion. 

We are hoping to have a discussion in the INT area meeting on this
topic. However, it may turn out due to lack of time at that meeting that
we end up having this presentation and discussion at the MIPSHOP
meeting. A pointer to an early version of the slides can be found at
http://www.geocities.com/hellovidya/SBA_IETF-66.pdf.

We invite reviews and thoughts on the problem space - our goal is to get
a discussion on the problems and guage interest in solving this. 

Thanks,
Vidya

_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:52:06 +0200

>All,

I thought the maling list on the future architecture of the Internet 
was dead.  Since it is not, I just want to raise a question: 
JTC1/SC32/WG2 ISO 11179 and other standards seem to pave the way 
towards semantic networking (brain to brain?) and incidently to a 
distributed documentation of physical networking (end to end?).  Yet 
they did not approach yet multilingualism (not internationalization) 
and distributed networking.

The revision of the WG-LTRU charter put the light on ISO 11179 
conformance. From working on this, my feeling is that we need here an 
IAB doctrine + a dedicated WG. With a work more complex but similar 
to what has been made to X.500 to get LDAP.

I would be interested to know if there are Members of this list 
working/investigating that direction. I think it is necessary for any 
multilingual, multilateral, multitechnology, etc. architecture - all 
the more if it is by way of usage (at it seems we can hardly expect 
structural innovation at the Internet layer in a near future to match 
the current market needs and expectations).

jfc