Michael Thomas wrote: > [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*?
Future proofing of the *environment*. Your grandmother's old and bulky IPv6 host still needs to work with your new and shiny IPv6 host, doesn't it? Jari -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
