>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:56:04 +0900,
>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>>> no, the device answering ICMPv6 request is not named.
>> ??? I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that we can *not always*
>> assume the device answering ICMPv6 request runs a name server?
> the thread of email assumes the following diagram.
>> client resolver ---------> named -------> the target
>> DNS query NI query
>> client resolver <--------- named <------- the target
>> DNS response NI response
Hmm, I read the Ted's message
>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 16:53:10 -0700,
>>>>> Ted Lemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> What do people think of signing the ICMP packet with the private key that
> corresponds to a KEY RR that is attached to the name mentioned in the ICMP
> packet?
to mean the diagram like this:
NI query
nodeinfo client ------------------> the target
with named (authorizing the name)
and private key
<------------------
NI response signed
by the private key
(BTW: I understood the very original idea of this thread meant the
diagram you showed.)
But if I just misunderstood, please ignore me. I was just checking.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
