[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
HIP issue
- To: or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: HIP issue
- From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:13:27 -0400
- Delivered-to: archiver@seul.org
- Delivered-to: or-dev-outgoing@seul.org
- Delivered-to: or-dev@seul.org
- Delivery-date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:13:47 -0400
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:x-enigmail-version:openpgp:content-type; b=HVpAdian89ZnV6Gd7hX3hJQ8ZClwHshMotTG08e8M07AZL26UsiHSTxBUNJA3SURxumubtn3REPOiDwH8LbeAOIzD0HlzEm+YjP1VKXwPbG9Be+fzMX9NoOh6GtbbR3VHJfAxmsqrOFojr3db3I43imfRgwYlGLkNbLDYM7PbmY=
- Openpgp: url=http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x57C89443
- Reply-to: or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Macintosh/20060909)
What *exactly* are we talking about using HIP for? Node-to-node
connections, or the connections the client makes to tunnel traffic?
For the first one we have TLS. For the second one, HIP solves the wrong
problem. We want to authenticate nodes to users, not each to the other.
While HIP is more efficient then TLS, we could use SSH for the
connections to gain on efficiency.(Talking about the first problem).
SSH is one of the most scrutinized protocols in existence, so it could
be a good choice.
Sincerely,
Watson Ladd
--
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security,
deserve neither liberty or security
--Benjamin Franklin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature