Francis Dupont writes:
> In your previous mail you wrote:
>
> The current draft states that a non-zero label could be changed by an
> intermediate node to a non-zero value. However, during the discussion on the
> topic in SLC it was concluded (IMO) that this is undesirable, and it would
> be more useful (and sound) to keep the value always immutable (end-to-end).
>
> => I disagree: if the end node is too dumb to set itself the label
> (i.e. just uses in any case the zero value) and the first router
> for instance sets the label when needed then the zero value should
> not be immutable. I don't use dumb hosts (:-) but it seems this kind of
> things already commonly happens for RSVP in the real world so we should
> keep the door open... So I fully share Robert Elz's opinion.
I'm afraid this brings us back to the slippery slope
of edge-remarkers and the layer violation of routers
wanting to look at L4+ headers, and the inherent
difficulty/impossibility. Please, let's not go there
again.
> AH: It could be possible to change AH, but it might not be worth it.
>
> => Robert Elz has just explained why we must not change AH...
> And it seems you don't understand that AH can't really help to protect
> something in transit, i.e. intermediate routers have not the key and
> can't verify the AH MAC.
If there's a change that will happen to AH it will
be moving it to Historic.
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
