I'll re-post a point below in this separate thread, so it won't get lost
in the noise.
There was not discussion back a few months ago, but perhaps there are more
opinions now. Should compatible addresses be killed from addrarch (-07:
2.5.5), written in some more generic fashion or what?
--
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 13:01:33 +0200 (EET)
From: Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Fred L. Templin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Vladislav Yasevich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: (ngtrans) remote netaccess-threats via automatic tunneling
On Sun, 23 Dec 2001, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[snip]
> > - should autotunnel be deprecated in a more official fashion?
>
> Probably. That means removing it from the address architecture and from
> RFC 2893.
Addrarch revision is underway (close to complete I fear), so this might be
the chance to do one of these (next one would possibly be in 2-3 years).
I commented on the fact earlier too, because I didn't see all that much
point in describing just one special tunneling technique in addrarch.
If curious, the message was:
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 00:20:38 +0300 (EEST)
From: Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
