Bob Hinden wrote:
> This is staring to sound a lot more like a research project than > something the IETF should be considering standardizing now. I wonder if > it might be better to complete the research and then decide the best way > to signal it's usage (e.g., bit, control protocols, etc.). This would be otherwise fine, but I'm not sure what we should do with MIPv6 in the mean time. I share your and Pekka's concerns about the method, but we're not proposing it for its own sake. We just feel uneasy about deploying an infrastructureless security method that modifies routing in all nodes of the v6 Internet, and never being able to exchange it for a newer one. Note that I believe the current method (RR) is secure enough, so suggesting that we find a better method doesn't help much -- I'd still like to be able to update it, should need arise. Jari P.S. Control protocols are clearly out of the question in this case, because their contents can be changed (something about the addresses can also be changed, but not without directing the attack somewhere else). -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
