Subject: Re: [pcp] PCP security question

From: Jiang Dong <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:01:21 +0800

Hi, Francis,

>In your previous mail you wrote: 
>    Secure channel is complicated, which actually will not be used in
>    normal case. If there exists a easy subscriber identification to
>    secure the common attack like DoS, unwanted mapping deleting, that
>    would be better.
>=> your argument is a bit ambiguous: for instance I don't understand
>if it applies to DS-Lite, i.e., do you mean in DS-Lite a secure channel
>is not needed?
I mean secure channel is indeed needed in hostile environment. 
But most of the time it will not be actually used for secure channel is very complicated while PCP itself is simple.
So we need a simple method based on PCP protocol to secure PCP in normal simple operation.
>BTW IMHO Alain's question is about using a secure channel vs. extra
>security features in the protocol, in cases where such a thing is
>required.
>Regards
>[email-masked]

Best regards!
Jiang Dong
2010-11-15

---

From: Piotr Meus <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 14:12:21 +0800

Hoping that PCP will address NAT traversal and NOT Firewalls,
and agreeing with what Stuart Cheshire said during the WG meeting
(NAT was not there for security at first place) I would rather rely on
channel security.

Best regards,
Peter Meus