> > It seems to me that the important point is that a host needs > > to assert something about the strength of security it requires. > > This is a property of a host, not a property of an address. > > I become more and more convinced that asserting this property > > via an address bit is both unnecessary (it can be done by > > a header field that is equally subject to authentication) > > and undesirable (overloading). > >
=> Mobility is all about managing address changes. In MIP, the identity that matters is the address, not the host. The host has no meaning in the context of MIP. So I think a cryptographically generated address is a property of *that* address. Hesham -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
