At Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:48:39 +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > On 2007-11-26 04:38, Eric Rescorla wrote: > ... > > Yes, I understand that, but again, your argument precedes from the > > premise that people won't want to deploy CGA. Given that substantial > > effort was invested in that, I think it's reasonable to take > > a step back and ask why some new approach will be more attractive, > > not just assume that it will be because it points in some different > > direction. > > I think the scenarios are very different. To pay the costs of deploying > CGAs, you have to be worried about threats from interlopers on your > own infrastructure, as I understand things. HBAs deal with threats from > interlopers anywhere between the two ends of the shim6 session. > They're much easier to deploy since they use a nonce instead of > a key pair.
Hmm... I'm fairly familiar with crypto protocols and I don't see why this makes them any easier to deploy. CAn you please explain? -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
