Re: Status of Seamoby drafts

Vijay, Jim,

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:

> > Since context transfer security is an n by n problem, establishing the SAs
> > to protect inter-router transfers is not an easy thing.  For this reason one
> > might conclude that pre-shared keys are difficult, since n(n-1) of them
> > would be necessary.  On the other hand, is it being suggested that each
> > router needs to be provisioned with a certificate? On reading the draft it
> > isn't clear what's being recommended (or even considered).
>

I could not parse the "n by n" problem. Any pointers ?
Why is the order higher than pairwise SA between routers, which might
already exist ?

-Rajeev


>
> this comment is valid. but since we assume the access routers are
> part of the same administrative domain, they are provisioned with
> the required certificates to run IKE. (?)
>
> Vijay
>
> _______________________________________________
> Seamoby mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby