Subject: [Hipsec] KHIs and SHA-256

From: Pekka Nikander <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 10:49:10 -0800

[Cross-posted to HIP WG and IPv6 WG; replies _only_ to INT area please.]

I'd like to direct people's attention to draft-laganier-ipv6- 
khi-00.txt at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-laganier-ipv6-khi-00.txt

Here is the abstract:

    This document introduces Keyed Hash Identifiers (KHI) as a new,
    experimental class of IPv6-address-lookalike identifiers.  They are
    constructed to be statistically globally unique.  They are intended
    to be used as identifiers only, and not as locators.  They should  
not
    appear in actual IPv6 headers.  Consequently, they are considered as
    non-routable addresses from the IPv6 point of view.

    These identifiers are expected to be used at the existing IPv6 API
    and application protocols between consenting hosts.  They may be
    defined and used in different contexts, suitable for different
    protocols.  Examples of these include Host Identity Tags (HIT) in  
the
    Host Identity Protocol (HIP) and Temporary Mobile Identifiers (TMI)
    for Mobile IPv6 Privacy Extension.

    This document requests IANA to allocate a temporary prefix out of  
the
    IPv6 addressing space for Keyed Hash Identifiers.

The basic question is whether we should go forward with it, and if  
so, where?
Could we last call it at the Internet Area, as the IPv6 chairs  
indicate that they consider it a larger issue and not just IPv6  
specific?

I would also get people's opinion whether SHA-1 is OK for the  
document, as currently the proposed experiment is to end by 2009.   
According to the discussion at security directorate yesterday, SHA-1  
is expected to be at the end of life by 2010.  Consequently, for most  
security protocols there will be two transitions in the foreseeable  
future, first to SHA-256, and then to something that NIST may be  
getting to within the next five years or so.  Hence, are we happy  
with going with (patched) SHA-1 with the expectation that the  
experiment will end by 2009, and will also become unsecure around the  
same time, or should we adopt SHA-256 from the beginning?

See also the previous discussion at the IPv6 WG, starting at
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg05627.html

--Pekka Nikander

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:27:44 +0100

In your previous mail you wrote:

   My understanding is that these are not routable addresses.  That is,
   they won't appear in routing protocol exchanges or routing tables.
   If that is the case, then we are talking about the allocation of 
   something different than IPv6 addresses.
   
=> you are right: not only they are not routable but they should
be easy to be recognized as not routable.

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 08:42:52 -0800

Pekka,

> indicate that they consider it a larger issue and not just IPv6  

While I do think there are larger issues here, since this proposes an  
allocation of IPv6 addresses I think it is important that the IPv6  
working group review it.  It would be good to talk to the Internet  
ADs to figure out the best way forward (e.g., where to last call it,  
etc.).

Thanks,
Bob

> According to the discussion at security directorate yesterday,  
> SHA-1 is expected to be at the end of life by 2010.  Consequently,  
> for most security protocols there will be two transitions in the  
> foreseeable future, first to SHA-256, and then to something that  
> NIST may be getting to within the next five years or so.  Hence,  
> are we happy with going with (patched) SHA-1 with the expectation  
> that the experiment will end by 2009, and will also become unsecure  
> around the same time, or should we adopt SHA-256 from the beginning?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:41:07 +1100

>be easy to be recognized as not routable.

+1

Geoff

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:05:55 -0500

My understanding is that these are not routable addresses.  That is,
they won't appear in routing protocol exchanges or routing tables.
If that is the case, then we are talking about the allocation of 
something
different than IPv6 addresses.

Regards,
Brian

On Nov 10, 2005, at 11:42, Bob Hinden wrote:

> working group review it.  It would be good to talk to the Internet ADs 
> to figure out the best way forward (e.g., where to last call it, 
> etc.).
>
> Thanks,
> Bob
>
>