Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches

marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:

>
> El 28/06/2004, a las 10:09, Jukka Ylitalo escribió:
>
>>>
>> Thanks for bringing this out. Yes, the initiator would use, WIMP kind 
>> of,
>> ephemeral identifiers (random numbers), and the responder,
>> NOID kind of, routable IP-addresses at the application layer.
>>
>
> The problem is that some apps may need to make a refferal of the 
> initiator, which AFAIU is using an ephemeral id.
> I mean, by using a stable id for the receiver you solve the problem of 
> the initial cntact, but imho not the refferal problem, since the 
> initiator can also be reffered. I mean, apps that are not 
> client/server wouldn't be properly supported by this model, afaics
>
Well, you are right.

Next, I try to replace the current WIMP identifiers with NOID kind of AIDs
for both end-points; in the next WIMP I-D. The ephemeral context 
identifiers together
with hash chains would then be used only to identify the context. 
Basically, they would
serve the same purpose as the purpose built-keys for initiators.
That is, epheral context identifiers could be used to prevent attackers 
from stealing
a context. (I'm trying to figure out how to bind a specific application 
identifier to
a specific context.)

(snip)

>
> what about cgas?
> They are locators, so you can use them for refferals to non multi6 
> apps and hosts, they allow to map from id to locators using reverse 
> dns, and they are crypto in nature
> seems a good candidate to me :-)

That is one alternative. However, there are some IPR issues that must be
probably solved before applying cgas with multi6.

>
> regards, marcelo

br, Jukka