I am unable to parse the statement below as written. I presume I am
missing something that is clear to the writer.
I can understand asking that IKE(v3?) and IPSEC ESP be upgraded to
support quantum resistant algorithms. As I understand it, the security
community is doing that. if there are upgrades to those protocols
themselves that would help make the system quantum resistant, that would
be a reasonable thing to disucss with the security community.
But I have no idea what it would mean for IPv6 to be quantum resistant.
Without knowing what that means, I can't even guess whether there is
anything to do there.
Yours,
Joel
On 10/21/2022 4:36 AM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
In this addressing discussion, I was thinking, thanks to a private
conversation with experts from a manufacturer, that it might make sense
to try to make IPv6 to be quantum resistant.
One might think IPv6 has nothing to do with it, but one should consider
the security aspects of IPv6 (IPsec, some security in Mobile IPv6, CGAs,
etc). They should be migrated to the use of quantum-resistant protocol
implementations.
One would not like IPv6 to be discarded simply because its security
might be deemed by some to not be quantum-resistant.
Alex
Le 30/09/2022 à 10:36, Luigi Iannone a écrit :
Hi All,
During the last INTArea meeting the discussion on the two drafts
related to Internet addressing had three the clear outcomes: 1.
The issue seems to go beyond what the INTArea has been chartered
for. 2. The pain points (aka the problem) have to be scoped in
a better way. In the current form, the scope is so broad that we risk
ending up trying to boil the ocean without achieving any relevant
result. 3. Incremental deployability remains a MUST. No
revolution. Evolution is the only option.
Concerning point 1. The documents have been taken out from INTArea
(new naming). We still continue the discussion on the INTArea mailing
list, at least temporarily with the option to have a dedicated
mailing list in the future.
I would like to restart discuss on point 2: the scope.
The considerations draft
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iannone-internet-addressing-considerations/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iannone-internet-addressing-considerations/>)
highlighted three properties, namely: Property 1: Fixed Address
Length Property 2: Ambiguous Address Semantic Property 3: Limited
Address Semantic Support
But before going to the discussion of which property we should/want
change the first question the comes up is: what does an address
identify exactly?
A simple answer would be: an Interface.
But we all know that reality is far more complex, as pointed out with
the many existing examples in the considerations draft. What is even
more complex is how to provide a wealth of answers to the above
question within a framework for evolved addressing that does not rely
on the continued point-wise approach we see in the Internet today.
In order to start specifying what this evolved addressing framework
could be, the first steps are: - paraphrasing Lixia Zhang’s
question from the recent RTG WG interim meeting as “What should we
identify through an address?” - scope the work around those
answers we believe are most desirable to avoid the boiling the ocean
issue
Do you believe this is a reasonable approach to move forward?
Luigi
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing
list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
