1 / 4

Updates on draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec

Updates on draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec. Ulrich Herberg Thomas Clausen. Updates on draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-02. Editorial updates (update terminology to RFC6622) Decided *against* specifying address ICVs

bevis
Download Presentation

Updates on draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Updates on draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec Ulrich HerbergThomas Clausen

  2. Updates on draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-02 • Editorial updates (update terminology to RFC6622) • Decided *against* specifying address ICVs • Reason: Not possible to protect against *negative* advertisement of addresses (i.e., a router not advertising addresses of a neighbor, or with a zero link quality) • Only limited use cases

  3. Discussion (comment by Chris Dearlove) • Allow for adding ICVs to RFC5444 packets (in addition to HELLO messages)? • Answer of the nhdp-sec authors: • We strongly support specifying that • But: we prefer in another document, because: • Other protocols that do not use NHDP may want to use packet ICVs as well

  4. Next steps • WG LC?

More Related