Subject: RE: [SeaMoby] Topic #2:Do we need a server for CARD

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:22:24 -0500

Hi:

There seems to be some disconnect. The current DT draft does NOT intend solve the problem of enabling AR to determine which APs are authorized. APs are brought up/down and connected to/disconnected from AR. Some L2 layer mechanism between AR-AP enables AR to learn about new/removed AP. AR reports that AP is up/down to CARD server and CARD server stores the mapping. In other words, AR is in control of knowing what APs are attached to it and CARD server relies on information provided by AR regarding this.

Hemant 

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Eunsoo Shim [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 4:48 PM
To: James Kempf; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [SeaMoby] Topic #2:Do we need a server for CARD

> The server will allow an AR to determine which APs are authorized. The
dycard
> draft has nothing about this. This is an important security measure,
though not
> directly related to exchanging the CAR information.
>
[eunsoo] The routing protocol (for the wired Internet) has a similar
problem. They want to know whether a router is authorized to participate in
the route discovery. So for intra-domain routing protocols, usually shared
secret is proposed. Also Dycard assumes it in the expression that there
should be a security association between ARs. If we consider only
intra-domain communication between ARs, shared secret would be sufficient
for authorization and message authentication. If you consider central NMS
system that allows remote configuration of ARs, it would be very easy to
configure the shared secret among ARs. If there is no such thing, people do
the configuration by remotely logging into ARs. This one time configuration
removes concerns about scalability and reliability. You don't need a server
running up 24/7 for this authorization since you don't expect a new AR that
often.

Eunsoo

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:58:08 -0800

No disconnect.

My point was, this is a deficiency with both drafts. It is an issue we need to
resolve before we can consider the design complete.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 12:22 PM
Subject: RE: [SeaMoby] Topic #2:Do we need a server for CARD

> Hi:
>
> There seems to be some disconnect. The current DT draft does NOT intend solve
the problem of enabling AR to determine which APs are authorized. APs are
brought up/down and connected to/disconnected from AR. Some L2 layer mechanism
between AR-AP enables AR to learn about new/removed AP. AR reports that AP is
up/down to CARD server and CARD server stores the mapping. In other words, AR is
in control of knowing what APs are attached to it and CARD server relies on
information provided by AR regarding this.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:58:08 -0800

No disconnect.

            jak