Re: [DNA] Small security flaw in Hash FastRA (with proposal)

[Greg Daley <gregd@research.panasonic.com>]

Christian Vogt wrote:
> Hi Greg!
> 
>> I think that we have been trying very hard to not require explicit
>> trust between routers, as we already had a solution which did that, 
>> called Deterministic FastRA.
> 
> I see, so much the better.
> 
> Deterministic FastRA could be an option for networks where RA ordering
> is important and routers can mutually authenticate each other, such as
> NETLMM.  This wouldn't break things; the routers would just ignore the
> Nonce option used by MNs in RSs and come up with their own,
> deterministic RA ordering.

That's not exactly what I meant :)

I'd really prefer there's one solution, if possible.

The solution would drop straight in to a constrained
network scenario, but wouldn't work in a scenario
with any form of mixed deployment (caveat deployer!).

At this stage, let's see what the issues are which
need resolving, and we'll work out what the solutions
are from there (I really like HashFastRA, and it has
the blessing of DT and WG).

Greg