On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Pekka Nikander wrote: > Michael Thomas wrote: > > Also: if we have ingress filtering taken care of > > directly, is there any reason to preserve the HAO > > at all? I thought its entire raison d'etre was to > > provide a means of coexisting with ingress > > filtering -- which we've already proven is just > > shifting the problem around instead of providing > > something useful. > > Now THAT sounds like the most reasonable thing that > I have heard about ingress filtering for a long time! > > To me, it seems like combinding RR and CGA, the > ingress filtering router can fairly easily determine > that the MN really "owns" the home address, and > thereafter pass it. As an immediate reaction, the > only problem seems to be that CGA requires fairly > heavy CPU load. Could RR be enough in this case, > since the CoA and HoA are on the different sides > of the router?
Moreover, ingress filtering is usually performed at more than one router. The network manager of the LAN might perform it. The network manager of the site should perform it. The network manager of the ISP should also perform it. Etc. Therefore, this "notification" or "ingress filtering registration" would have to operate a bit like path MTU discovery or a router alert option. Also, this would get more difficult in the case of multiple, changing paths (multihoming). Certainly an interesting idea, though. -- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
