From sheahtk@babyhammer.com Fri Feb 1 03:28:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18A173A67E1 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 03:28:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 45.53 X-Spam-Level: ********************************************* X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=45.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_ALMOST_IP=5.417, FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP=1.889, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HELO_EQ_DSL_3=1.022, SUBJECT_FUZZY_MEDS=3.799, URIBL_SBL=20] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 0.9999] * 1.9 FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP The host almost looks like an IP addr. * 1.1 HELO_EQ_DSL HELO_EQ_DSL * 1.0 SARE_HELO_EQ_DSL_3 SARE_HELO_EQ_DSL_3 * 5.4 FH_HELO_ALMOST_IP Helo is almost an IP addr. * 1.4 HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (DHCP) * 3.8 SUBJECT_FUZZY_MEDS Attempt to obfuscate words in Subject: * 0.0 NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP URI: Uses a dotted-decimal IP address in URL * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 20 URIBL_SBL Contains an URL listed in the SBL blocklist * [URIs: 58.9.129.86] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [41.242.239.8 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address * [41.242.239.8 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to trusted network by host with * dynamic-looking rDNS Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sDLOy1qmDm5M for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 03:28:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from dsl-242-239-08.telkomadsl.co.za (dsl-242-239-08.telkomadsl.co.za [41.242.239.8]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 31B0B3A6910 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 03:28:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from fjt ([123.196.86.184]) by dsl-242-239-08.telkomadsl.co.za with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Fri, 1 Feb 2008 13:29:53 +0200 Message-ID: <47A302B1.4070107@babyhammer.com> Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 13:29:53 +0200 From: User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.13 (Windows/20070809) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rpsec-archive@ietf.org Subject: ***SPAM*** 45.53 (5) Looking for the best pricein medz? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Size truly does matter! http://58.9.129.86/buajii/ From mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com Fri Feb 1 05:18:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D38828C2CB for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:18:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.59 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jGebC4JN3dln for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:18:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C5FC28CBB6 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:03:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: ietf.org mailing list memberships reminder From: mailman-owner@ietf.org To: rpsec-archive@megatron.ietf.org X-No-Archive: yes Message-ID: Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 05:01:38 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-BeenThere: mailman@core3.amsl.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 List-Id: X-List-Administrivia: yes Sender: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com Errors-To: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your ietf.org mailing list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use it to change it or unsubscribe from a list. You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of the list (for example, mailman-request@ietf.org) containing just the word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to you with instructions. If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to mailman-owner@ietf.org. Thanks! http://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rpsec/rpsec-archive%40megatron.ietf.org From mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com Fri Feb 1 05:19:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5530728C906 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:18:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.59 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jxmquza8olm3 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:18:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EAE8293302 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:03:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: ietf.org mailing list memberships reminder From: mailman-owner@ietf.org To: rpsec-archive@megatron.ietf.org X-No-Archive: yes Message-ID: Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 05:01:37 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-BeenThere: mailman@core3.amsl.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 List-Id: X-List-Administrivia: yes Sender: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com Errors-To: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your ietf.org mailing list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use it to change it or unsubscribe from a list. You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of the list (for example, mailman-request@ietf.org) containing just the word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to you with instructions. If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to mailman-owner@ietf.org. Thanks! http://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rpsec/rpsec-archive%40megatron.ietf.org From guner@datasel.com.tr Tue Feb 5 10:53:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rpsec-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id AAB193A7A40; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:52:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from ABTS-TN-dynamic-132.39.164.122.airtelbroadband.in (unknown [122.164.39.132]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 933EB3A9936 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 03:08:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from vrgd ([148.150.157.112]) by ABTS-TN-dynamic-132.39.164.122.airtelbroadband.in with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:40:28 +0530 Message-ID: <002b01c867e7$b6e582e0$709d9694@vrgd> From: To: Subject: Improve your wellbeing today! Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:40:28 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="windows-1250"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 All love-enhancers (and many other meds) at one online store! http://uejjvy.owndeep.com From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 11 16:42:14 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25C123A6D03; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:42:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.227, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kbtXvJHyxNNw; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:42:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48BEE3A6D76; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:42:13 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rpsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rpsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F8213A6D76 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:42:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UIDyO31LNQMW for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:42:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 728C83A6D03 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:42:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from ilexp01.ndc.lucent.com (h135-3-39-1.lucent.com [135.3.39.1]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id m1C0haW7000513 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:43:36 -0600 (CST) Received: from inexp02.in.lucent.com ([135.254.223.66]) by ilexp01.ndc.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:43:35 -0600 Received: from INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com ([135.254.223.20]) by inexp02.in.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:13:31 +0530 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:13:04 +0530 Message-ID: <6D26D1FE43A66F439F8109CDD42419650125AA3E@INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issues with existing Cryptographic Protection Methods for Routing Protocols Thread-Index: AchtEDoNwKLhy/8jT0m1Sx+EGIlVdw== From: "Bhatia, Manav \(Manav\)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Feb 2008 00:43:31.0696 (UTC) FILETIME=[4A816F00:01C86D10] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35 Subject: [RPSEC] Issues with existing Cryptographic Protection Methods for Routing Protocols X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Folks, We have posted a revised version of the above draft. Would appreciate feedback from the WG. Routing protocols are designed to use cryptographic mechanisms to authenticate data being received from a neighboring router to ensure that it has not been modified in transit, and actually originated from the neighboring router purporting to have originating the data. Most of the cryptographic mechanisms defined to date rely on hash algorithms applied to the data in the routing protocol packet, which means the data is transported, in the clear, along with a signature based on the data itself. These mechanisms rely on the manual configuration of the keys used to seed, or build, these hash based signatures. This document outlines some of the problems with manual keying of these cryptographic algorithms. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manral-rpsec-existing-crypto-0 5.txt Thanks, Vishwas, Russ and Manav _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 13 08:15:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BFCD28C945; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:15:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.397 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.960, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xSJY14v0GlgU; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:15:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F0028C8AD; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:15:15 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rpsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rpsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 518F728C86E for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:15:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jcJEK6Srw4b8 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:15:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og101.obsmtp.com (exprod7og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.155]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2138728C804 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:14:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) by exprod7ob101.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:15:29 PST Received: from proton.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.37]) by emailsmtp55.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:15:51 -0800 Received: from [172.23.1.203] ([172.23.1.203] RDNS failed) by proton.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:13:18 -0500 Message-ID: <47B3173B.5090106@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:13:47 -0500 From: Ron Bonica User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Bhatia, Manav \(Manav\)" References: <6D26D1FE43A66F439F8109CDD42419650125AA3E@INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <6D26D1FE43A66F439F8109CDD42419650125AA3E@INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Feb 2008 16:13:19.0002 (UTC) FILETIME=[58BE87A0:01C86E5B] Cc: rpsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Issues with existing Cryptographic Protection Methods for Routing Protocols X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Guys, This is a good summary. Thank you for writing it. Do you think that it would be helpful to mention that some protocols (e.g., OSPFv2) have mechanisms for graceful rekeying. Also, do you think that it might be helpful to consider draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt wrt BGP? Ron Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote: > Folks, > > We have posted a revised version of the above draft. Would appreciate > feedback from the WG. > > Routing protocols are designed to use cryptographic mechanisms to > authenticate data being received from a neighboring router to ensure > that it has not been modified in transit, and actually originated from > the neighboring router purporting to have originating the data. Most of > the cryptographic mechanisms defined to date rely on hash algorithms > applied to the data in the routing protocol packet, which means the data > is transported, in the clear, along with a signature based on the data > itself. These mechanisms rely on the manual configuration of the keys > used to seed, or build, these hash based signatures. This document > outlines some of the problems with manual keying of these cryptographic > algorithms. > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manral-rpsec-existing-crypto-0 > 5.txt > > Thanks, > Vishwas, Russ and Manav > _______________________________________________ > RPSEC mailing list > RPSEC@ietf.org > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec > _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 13 18:08:00 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3379B28C850; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:08:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.454 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CEjKSybkfKnZ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:07:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F2D23A6F65; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:07:59 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rpsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rpsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B95B28C519 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:07:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Po3FXqgUiqQm for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:07:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EC763A6C8F for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:07:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com (h135-3-39-2.lucent.com [135.3.39.2]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id m1E295Fq008260; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:09:14 -0600 (CST) Received: from inexp01.in.lucent.com ([135.254.223.65]) by ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:09:01 -0600 Received: from INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com ([135.254.223.20]) by inexp01.in.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:38:55 +0530 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:38:52 +0530 Message-ID: <6D26D1FE43A66F439F8109CDD42419650125ADD6@INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <47B3173B.5090106@juniper.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [RPSEC] Issues with existing Cryptographic Protection Methods for Routing Protocols Thread-Index: AchuW8/NrqUWfazKQzyC2TnYYJnyGgAUkyZw References: <6D26D1FE43A66F439F8109CDD42419650125AA3E@INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com> <47B3173B.5090106@juniper.net> From: "Bhatia, Manav \(Manav\)" To: "Ron Bonica" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Feb 2008 02:08:55.0252 (UTC) FILETIME=[8D358940:01C86EAE] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39 Cc: rpsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Issues with existing Cryptographic Protection Methods for Routing Protocols X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Yes, I think it would be good to consider draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt wrt BGP. We'll do this in the next cut. Manav > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbonica@juniper.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9.44 PM > To: Bhatia, Manav (Manav) > Cc: rpsec@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Issues with existing Cryptographic > Protection Methods for Routing Protocols > > Guys, > > This is a good summary. Thank you for writing it. > > Do you think that it would be helpful to mention that some protocols > (e.g., OSPFv2) have mechanisms for graceful rekeying. > > Also, do you think that it might be helpful to consider > draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt wrt BGP? > > Ron > > > Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote: > > Folks, > > > > We have posted a revised version of the above draft. Would > appreciate > > feedback from the WG. > > > > Routing protocols are designed to use cryptographic mechanisms to > > authenticate data being received from a neighboring router to ensure > > that it has not been modified in transit, and actually > originated from > > the neighboring router purporting to have originating the > data. Most of > > the cryptographic mechanisms defined to date rely on hash algorithms > > applied to the data in the routing protocol packet, which > means the data > > is transported, in the clear, along with a signature based > on the data > > itself. These mechanisms rely on the manual configuration > of the keys > > used to seed, or build, these hash based signatures. This document > > outlines some of the problems with manual keying of these > cryptographic > > algorithms. > > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manral-rpsec-existin > g-crypto-0 > > 5.txt > > > > Thanks, > > Vishwas, Russ and Manav > > _______________________________________________ > > RPSEC mailing list > > RPSEC@ietf.org > > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec > > > _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 13 19:07:02 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBBD528C81B; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:07:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.75 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.313, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ht0L+u4N2kyK; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:07:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B77E128C747; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:07:00 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rpsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rpsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59AB128C7CD for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:06:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zk8T+giQBccR for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:06:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from el-out-1112.google.com (el-out-1112.google.com [209.85.162.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DABC528C7BA for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:06:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by el-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id j27so319946elf.25 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:08:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.128.6 with SMTP id a6mr633754wfd.206.1202958494503; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:08:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.102.19 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:08:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <77ead0ec0802131908y323f5ba8l3c84e9760f8699a6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:08:14 -0800 From: "Vishwas Manral" To: "Ron Bonica" In-Reply-To: <47B3173B.5090106@juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <6D26D1FE43A66F439F8109CDD42419650125AA3E@INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com> <47B3173B.5090106@juniper.net> Cc: rpsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Issues with existing Cryptographic Protection Methods for Routing Protocols X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Thanks Ron. Yes, I think TCP Auth is much better than current MD5 mechanism defined currently. We certainly could refer it in our draft (as a method to provide better security). It will be useful for LDP too besides just BGP. The OSPF part is good too. However our aim is to point out issues with the protocol security mechanisms. Thanks again, Vishwas On Feb 13, 2008 8:13 AM, Ron Bonica wrote: > Guys, > > This is a good summary. Thank you for writing it. > > Do you think that it would be helpful to mention that some protocols > (e.g., OSPFv2) have mechanisms for graceful rekeying. > > Also, do you think that it might be helpful to consider > draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt wrt BGP? > > Ron > > > > Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote: > > Folks, > > > > We have posted a revised version of the above draft. Would appreciate > > feedback from the WG. > > > > Routing protocols are designed to use cryptographic mechanisms to > > authenticate data being received from a neighboring router to ensure > > that it has not been modified in transit, and actually originated from > > the neighboring router purporting to have originating the data. Most of > > the cryptographic mechanisms defined to date rely on hash algorithms > > applied to the data in the routing protocol packet, which means the data > > is transported, in the clear, along with a signature based on the data > > itself. These mechanisms rely on the manual configuration of the keys > > used to seed, or build, these hash based signatures. This document > > outlines some of the problems with manual keying of these cryptographic > > algorithms. > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manral-rpsec-existing-crypto-0 > > 5.txt > > > > Thanks, > > Vishwas, Russ and Manav > > _______________________________________________ > > RPSEC mailing list > > RPSEC@ietf.org > > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec > > > _______________________________________________ > RPSEC mailing list > RPSEC@ietf.org > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec > _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From namehlnbvel@kubickidraper.com Thu Feb 14 12:26:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDFA43A6894 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:26:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.63 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.63 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MpWnbOuBjIoI for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:26:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from dsl082221.dyndsl.nettally.com (dsl082221.dyndsl.nettally.com [199.44.82.221]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D1493A63CA for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:26:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from wuiax ([212.105.80.231]) by dsl082221.dyndsl.nettally.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id m1EKUOng065827; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:30:24 -0500 Message-ID: <47B4A43A.8010804@kubickidraper.com> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:27:38 -0500 From: User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rpsec-archive@ietf.org Subject: Heart Pump Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My Love http://80.171.54.79/ From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 26 05:32:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA57C28C439; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:32:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.557 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.120, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LC72VKYBJL-r; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:32:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFE7828C2F8; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:32:23 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rpsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rpsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D853228C305 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:32:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vW1F6KkcdGbC for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:32:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D96A28C357 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:31:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Feb 2008 08:31:47 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m1QDVlOU002736 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:31:47 -0500 Received: from Temp-2.local (rtp-vpn2-181.cisco.com [10.82.240.181]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m1QDVlJR019346 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:31:47 GMT Message-ID: <47C414C3.7010408@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:31:47 -0500 From: Russ White User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rpsec@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=617; t=1204032707; x=1204896707; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=riw@cisco.com; z=From:=20Russ=20White=20 |Subject:=20Last=20Call=20for=20draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec- 09 |Sender:=20 |To:=20rpsec@ietf.org; bh=pZgA7abtm69iejsST+P9toM8PDassFbdGbJ1JLPMG5g=; b=LwKI0UgspOGTSdvi973pPejmah26Bmfz0h9hk6rQ+AzowrKMdHcbVRvkjj TsvbolMYTSjTWNlOZE+O4Yzf+2Fv9n7Kh32TthvqfCgWQafiwD+wiOiISY+d EtgxO3xYnl; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=riw@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Subject: [RPSEC] Last Call for draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-09 X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Y'all: I'd like to start the two week last call window for draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-09. There haven't been any changes for a long time on this one, and Tony's done an excellent job of pulling all the various comments together, etc. Please send in any final comments before March 14th (slightly over two weeks). :-) Russ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHxBTDER27sUhU9OQRAk38AKD0HP2seguJK3jSfa9jJEwUf+6vEgCgh5FE g52Of6/EZ3Usyc7YtI0LY+g= =2dvJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 26 05:33:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82A7628C460; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:33:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.107 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.670, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aZhdUqDhMQtp; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:33:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF4C28C2D6; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:33:04 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rpsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rpsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEBBD3A6C60 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:33:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I5DG49PBmGuC for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:33:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E469A3A6B7A for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:33:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Feb 2008 08:32:57 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m1QDWuYZ018445 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:32:56 -0500 Received: from Temp-2.local (rtp-vpn2-181.cisco.com [10.82.240.181]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m1QDWuJR019667 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:32:56 GMT Message-ID: <47C41508.7080803@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:32:56 -0500 From: Russ White User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rpsec@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=499; t=1204032776; x=1204896776; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=riw@cisco.com; z=From:=20Russ=20White=20 |Subject:=20Agenda=20items=20for=20the=20IETF |Sender:=20 |To:=20rpsec@ietf.org; bh=0IeM9S9pV3Zi4qyMU7cnCvgKqz1nSyJtFwhkK/dbXY0=; b=uNdj7MoirRUxVY1FxVej9byUpTafriqLcVITJ975WubwPQ8RDg/Pxk4pl0 ZxEZyQQlrIu/vHn4iV6ZP7QGKr3K5d92yuE3qq3kc3uGxhB06m2xwTaJTwyq Oomn2hPtvN; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=riw@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Subject: [RPSEC] Agenda items for the IETF X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Any agenda items for this IETF? I know we have a couple of things to cover--we need to at least discuss making some things WG items, and discuss the charter, which hasn't been updated in a long while. :-) Russ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHxBUIER27sUhU9OQRAun7AJsHZCkKwLmwK/l0syjxcHuizojXJgCglT8H CLDm7ARW9qnNrW0dm/HjZSk= =GYFo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 26 09:03:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCB3B28C6CB; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:03:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.583 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.146, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lNG2qNCe1-um; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:03:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C8F28C6FD; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:03:26 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rpsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rpsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BF6B28C4BE for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:03:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NbXkmB+AjrUC for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:03:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 410F13A6B86 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:03:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com (h135-3-39-2.lucent.com [135.3.39.2]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id m1QH2wqZ012364 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:03:10 -0600 (CST) Received: from inexp01.in.lucent.com ([135.254.223.65]) by ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:02:43 -0600 Received: from INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com ([135.254.223.20]) by inexp01.in.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:32:22 +0530 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:32:18 +0530 Message-ID: <6D26D1FE43A66F439F8109CDD4241965012E982D@INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements for Routing Protocols Thread-Index: Ach4mVhg6tdfZVU4S+u5bOSfbDZSqw== From: "Bhatia, Manav \(Manav\)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Feb 2008 17:02:22.0412 (UTC) FILETIME=[5A8600C0:01C87899] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35 Subject: [RPSEC] Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements for Routing Protocols X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Hi, Our earlier drafts on OSPF/IS-IS cryptographic algorithms implementation requirements were discussed in the 67th and 68th IETFs. It was suggested that we merge our OSPF and IS-IS drafts into one, include RIP, and present the same in the RPSEC WG. This is the first version of the merged draft. Abstract: The interior gateway routing protocols OSPFv2 [RFC2328], IS-IS [ISO] [RFC1195] and RIP [RFC2453] currently define clear text and MD5 [RFC1321] algorithms for authenticating their protocol packets. There have recently been documents adding support of the SHA family of hash algorithms for authenticating routing protocol packets for RIP, IS-IS and OSPF. To ensure interoperability between disparate implementations, it is imperative that we specify a set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms thereby ensuring that there is at least one algorithm that all implementations will have available. This document defines the current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms to be used for the cryptographic authentication of these routing protocols as well as specifying the algorithms that should be implemented because they may be promoted to mandatory at some future time. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bhatia-manral-igp-crypto-requi rements-00.txt Regards, Manav _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 26 09:28:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F7603A6D4F; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:28:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.652 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.215, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5hZdck6jc-MK; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:28:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBB0E28C564; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:28:02 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rpsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rpsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF94628C464 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:28:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id edGf8qI6nFY2 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:28:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.170]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D582A3A6D11 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:27:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 25so1536260wfa.31 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:27:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=maNIr/cLCcoNBTsoKb1q753+CdxMkpGLF0teucKwUI8=; b=vCi0Fm+Mjh2hgRh/6tg6MV8TVxhA3d5lWj32oWVdi3+lUTJFbq/qxDawAvzAaAhkuOrqW0E5GcQUTJq0Nd9w1iarq/sP2V8FH3Pxb67MjVVB4XRgjPk0xzcGYP3RNMVhtgh/ZgJNf/ckwZwud2IILwKALDJoyn81eU/P8CtYS0A= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=RkrFB/kdERl50CCHFtcY15LLIO8+oHCehpZ97Ij85RoC2hB9MaWb4eVJtz/YGyd7xe8VAypX5IKgY18y3cJHiapaGnVnweRTWfyhvQvv+NQHIX68EIxScissGYpSHgoDn35lkkkV8q8EtUksV213gZiVtkUKbPq9kHAlUxts1h4= Received: by 10.142.191.2 with SMTP id o2mr4006292wff.209.1204046847458; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:27:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.143.164.14 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:27:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <77ead0ec0802260927q2c4f8dfclff72100b19565099@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:27:27 -0800 From: "Vishwas Manral" To: "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" In-Reply-To: <6D26D1FE43A66F439F8109CDD4241965012E982D@INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <6D26D1FE43A66F439F8109CDD4241965012E982D@INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com> Cc: rpsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements for Routing Protocols X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Hi Manav, This very same thing has come up in SAAG too. If we keep such requirements seperate for each protocol, we may end up having more people documenting the cryptographic protocol requirement for each protocol than the number of people actually working on the protocols. We can use the draft to have requirement for BGP too, with the new TCPM extension - authored by Ron. Thanks, Vishwas On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote: > Hi, > > Our earlier drafts on OSPF/IS-IS cryptographic algorithms implementation > requirements were discussed in the 67th and 68th IETFs. It was suggested > that we merge our OSPF and IS-IS drafts into one, include RIP, and > present the same in the RPSEC WG. This is the first version of the > merged draft. > > Abstract: > > The interior gateway routing protocols OSPFv2 [RFC2328], IS-IS [ISO] > [RFC1195] and RIP [RFC2453] currently define clear text and MD5 > [RFC1321] algorithms for authenticating their protocol packets. There > have recently been documents adding support of the SHA family of hash > algorithms for authenticating routing protocol packets for RIP, IS-IS > and OSPF. > > To ensure interoperability between disparate implementations, it is > imperative that we specify a set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms > thereby ensuring that there is at least one algorithm that all > implementations will have available. This document defines the current > set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms to be used for the > cryptographic authentication of these routing protocols as well as > specifying the algorithms that should be implemented because they may be > promoted to mandatory at some future time. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bhatia-manral-igp-crypto-requi > rements-00.txt > > Regards, > Manav > _______________________________________________ > RPSEC mailing list > RPSEC@ietf.org > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec > _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec