Hi Ran, If I understand your ILNP correctly, it is much silimar with the GSE. If so, I'm wondering whether the issues with the GSE described in draft-ietf-ipngwg-esd-analysis have been successfully solved by the ILNP, e.g., identifier authentication issue. It seems that the answers to these hard issues have not been mentioned in your slides.
I noticed the following statement in your slides, do you believe that 62-bit field is long enough to prevent the security of the binding of the 62-bit hash value and the public key from being easily compromised once you use the HIP/CGA like ideas to deal with the identifier authentication issue? ********************************* If scope bit is local, have 62 bits that can be anything: ‣ Cryptographically Generated Identifier (a la CGA proposals) ‣ Hash of a public-key (a la HIP) ‣ Pseudo-randomly generated (a la IPv6 Privacy AutoConf) ********************************** Best regard, Xiaohu _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
