Tero Kivinen writes:
>
> Jari Arkko writes:
> > I would like to suggest that we do our own specific
> > type of test, but allow same tests to be "reused" across
> > protocols where this makes sense. That is, in MOBIKE
> > we do our own test that verifies liveness of the address
> > and that the peer is indeed still the same IKEv2
> > node and has knowledge of some secret keying material.
> > In addition, we add a note saying that the use of
> > the results of this test may be possible in other
> > protocol layers*.
>
> How about, if we simply define the requirements for our tests,
> and say that if those requirements are met by some other tests
> already done, then tests inside MOBIKE can be skipped. And then
> we would of course define what our tests provide, so others can
> skip their tests if your tests fullfill their needs too.
I think the main requirement would be verifying that the same
entity that sent the address update message claiming to be at
address X can also receive packets sent to X.
IMHO it sounds quite unlikely that any other protocol could
provide this information...?
What we could get is something like "This host has recently
communicated with someone at address X with protocol FOO",
but we probably don't know if that someone is the sender of
the MOBIKE address update or its intended victim...
(Well, there are cases where we actually could know it: e.g.,
the peer in IKE and "FOO" authenticated with the same
credentials, or something like that. But I think these
cases are quite rare...)
Best regards,
Pasi
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.