Vijay Devarapalli writes:
> RO is a SHOULD, it is not a MUST in the current draft. we were
> not talking about route optimization. we were talking about
> processing a HAO. in the current spec HAO MUST be processed but
> not accepted if it cant be verified. verification can be in the
> form of checking for a valid BCE (created securely), IPsec
> protected data session, same trusted domain (where you dont
> expect people to do reflection attacks), the tagging proposal
> from Rajeev and Charlie, smart ingress filtering from Francis
> Dupont, etc...
Oh, OK. Sorry about that. Still if the code
isn't in the CN, the MN should still be able
to operate correctly, right? That still seems
to me to be a SHOULD rather than a MUST for the
same reasons in my reply to John.
I guess the long and short of this is that I'm
somewhat skeptical of putting general node
requirements in the MIP draft since it's
probably not the first place one would be
looking to figure out if they were an IPv6
compliant node. If it's really, really vital
for the health of the net, yadda, yadda, it
would be better to put it in a general v6 node
requirements RFC, don't you think?
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
