On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Hesham Soliman (ERA) wrote: > > Mohan Parthasarathy wrote: > > > > > t very clear as to why you have to reserve a bit in the > > > address to express different security mechanisms being > > used. Why can't > > > this be built into the protocol itself ? Is it because > > that the future > > > security mechanisms will not use the same set of message > > exchanges as > > > RR and hence you want a protocol independent way of > > indicating the method ? > > > I would assume that any mechanism to establish the > > binding between home > > > address and care of address would have a few message > > exchanges. Can you > > Jari wrote: > > > > > Because the MitM attacker can change everything related to these > > messages, it doesn't help to put anything to the messages for the > > bidding down protection. > > > > Note that the MitM can also change the IP address, but if he does > > so, he is *not* attacking the original host, as the address is > > changed. > > > > => For all those opposing the addition of the bit > in the IID, I really hope you would carefully consider > Jari's text above. For mechanisms designed to prove > address ownership (relevant to securing ND, MIPv6 BUs > and I can think of more), you MUST include the > distinction in the _IP_address. The IP address _is_ > the identifier relevant for this case, not the host > name, URL or anything else.
Two destination addresses, one that requires verification by stronger means, one which does not. -- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
