Title: RE: Allocating a bit in the RFC2374 Interface Identifier

Pekka,

How do you identify those two addresses without reserving the bits ?

-mohan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 8:40 AM
> To: Hesham Soliman (ERA)
> Cc: Jari Arkko; Mohan Parthasarathy; Pekka Nikander;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Erik Nordmark
> Subject: RE: Allocating a bit in the RFC2374 Interface Identifier
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Hesham Soliman (ERA) wrote:
> >   > > => 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.
> >
> > => ?? Which part of my message are you answering ?
>
> I was just pointing out a possible alternative to reserving
> bits in the source addresses.
>
> --
> 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
>
>

Reply via email to