Subject: [IPTEL] Re: TRIP

From: S_S_Dinesh/India/[email-masked]
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 14:10:28 +0530

A couple additional comments...

> >
> > Section 5.2.1.1, (IPSec)
> > Is there any reason TRIP _couldn't_ rely on IPSec for security?
Conversely, what about
> > implementations that don't support IPSec? There might be a problem with
> > problem re-hashing changing headers, etc, though I think the IPv6 specs
> > address that. Would TRIP's specification seem incomplete without
security
> > of it's own?

We couldn't come up with any reason why IPSEC couldn't be relied on for
security, except of course if an implentation that didn't support it.
In the upcoming draft, we've removed references to bgp authentication
mechanisms, added some text for signing individual attributes (what we
called 'next-hop security' at the last ietf), but have yet to really
address the use of IPSEC with regards to the keying issues.  That should
come in the next round I hope.

> >
> > Section 6.3.1 (port addresses)
> > In my opinion, I it is not necessary to have a
subnetwork_address_field.
> > However, I do think that next hop ITAD should be included, as
filtering, etc
> > may be based on this.

This is pretty much what we went with in the upcoming version.

- Matt

---------
This message came from the IETF IPTEL Working Group Mailing List.

_______________________________________________
IPTEL mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel