Pekka Savola wrote:
>>> 3. require manual configuration. > > Actually, in some cases (e.g. some ND messages, to prevent spoofing), > this wouldn't be all that big an issue :-) Complete manual configuration in terms of who is expected to use what level of security is probably out of question; I can't expect to inform www.cnn.com about my preferences in any manner. However, it may be possible to think about a single 'flag' that each node has and which determines who strong security it can handle. But this seems to get us into one of two undesirable positions: First, we could allow e.g. www.cnn.com to accept different levels, but this defeats the purpose of stronger security since the weaker method could still be used by someone to trick cnn into diverting your traffic somewhere else. Second, we could be strict about the levels and only talk to nodes that use stronger security. But this would restrict us to a small set of nodes, RO or no RO. Assuming better than RR security becomes necessary at some point, it's deployment would be extremely hard (more on this in draft-aura-mipv6-bu-attacks, section 6.2). Do you Pekka agree, or did you have some other form of manual configuration in mind? 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
