From architecture-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 07 17:55:56 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FyyIe-0002vr-KY; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:55:48 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FyyId-0002vT-05; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:55:47 -0400 Received: from numenor.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.58]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FyyIb-0004mx-Hx; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:55:46 -0400 Received: from crowley.qualcomm.com (crowley.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.151]) by numenor.qualcomm.com (8.13.6/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id k67Lthba027436 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:55:44 -0700 Received: from NAEXBR03.na.qualcomm.com (naexbr03.qualcomm.com [129.46.134.172]) by crowley.qualcomm.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/1.0) with ESMTP id k67LtVCv002070; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:55:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAEX13.na.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.248]) by NAEXBR03.na.qualcomm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:55:42 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:55:40 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <44A14C4D.8080808@piuha.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Symmetric-key Based Addresses (SBA) Thread-Index: AcaaDEgP3vE0TxFuQBe79R2ILrbuugH2BgIg From: "Narayanan, Vidya" To: "Internet Area" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2006 21:55:42.0974 (UTC) FILETIME=[17D661E0:01C6A210] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Cc: "Dondeti, Lakshminath" , Venkitaraman Narayanan-CNV002 Subject: [arch-d] Symmetric-key Based Addresses (SBA) X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: architecture-discuss-bounces@ietf.org 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.=20 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.=20 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.=20 Thanks, Vidya _______________________________________________ Architecture-discuss mailing list Architecture-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss From architecture-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 07 19:52:22 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fz07I-0000I9-Uh; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:52:12 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fz07H-0000I4-EE for architecture-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:52:11 -0400 Received: from smtp1-g19.free.fr ([212.27.42.27]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fz07G-0002hC-5e for architecture-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:52:11 -0400 Received: from asus.online.fr (ver78-2-82-241-91-24.fbx.proxad.net [82.241.91.24]) by smtp1-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99C78B90B for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2006 01:52:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20060708011349.041ea790@jefsey.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:52:06 +0200 To: From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" In-Reply-To: References: <44A14C4D.8080808@piuha.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-73B3F3C X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Subject: [arch-d] Multi-Internet X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: architecture-discuss-bounces@ietf.org At 23:55 07/07/2006, Narayanan, Vidya wrote: >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 _______________________________________________ Architecture-discuss mailing list Architecture-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss