Subject: RE: About identifiers, HITs, and security (was Re: A roadmap for end-point identifiers?)

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:45:42 -0700

Pekka,

> Pekka Nikander wrote:
> I don't remember any more what might have been the reasons
> for having more bits.  Could you please remind me?

Darn, I was hoping _you_ could refresh my memory.
I think that there were two things: crypto and hints about the locators.

If my recollection is correct (which can be doubted) here it is:

- For HIP, one of the issues you have is latency with the initial
negotiation, and I think I remember you saying that you could use some
extra bits to embed some crypto in order to reduce the number of round
trips necessary. Or maybe that is what you wished you had if you were to
apply HIP security to MHAP, can't remember.

- For MHAP, there were two things I think: 1. I had wished at some point
that I could embed a part of the locator's address in the identifier in
order to provide enough clue to take a crapshoot at bypassing the loc/id
centralized mapping. 2. We discussed CGIs and came to the conclusion
that besides the Intellectual Property issues with them there was no way
to make them workable with the MHAP identifier being only 128 bits.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------