[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Just to add onto Jari - it would be a no-brainer to
> state that IPsec (AH & ESP) MUST be supported,
> IKE MAY/SHOULD be supported. However, does this
> give users anything? Will it increase security for
> these devices, or is it just something that will make
> folks happy? The authors prefer to have a reasonable
> discussion on security within the draft. Knowledge of
> the field of Internet Security has increased since
> some of the initial IPv6 documents were published ...
It categorically depends on what you're trying to
do. Frankly, this entire line of discourse seems a
little bizarre to me. What is the point of a set of
must implement protocols where on the one hand it's
intended for fixed function device without easy
upgradability, etc, and on the other hand wanting
to insure some amount of future proofing. Future
proofing for *what*? Maybe I have this all wrong,
but it seems that what's going on here is an
architecture that's not an architecture. It
makes my head hurt.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
