> I am a bit surprised that the security problems with the routing header
> come as some sort of revelation at this stage. The intent, as I recall,
yup, it's such 1992 problem. hinden and kame needs harakiri.
> handy. My recollection of a conversation with Steve on this topic back
> in the previous century, at an IPv6 bake-off, was that it was "forced
> upon us" by the politics of the IPng "process". I think we can safely
> put to bed the idea that the designers were dolts who didn't learn from
> history. That doesn't mean there weren't dolts involved in the
> "process".:-)
steve and bob are too optimistic/academic, or too focused into
ipv6 so that they forget about ipv4.
they need to come to japan and take "real world ipv6" tutorial then
visit Calgary for "security" tutorial by theo. it's just like
boot camp (no, not apple's, but army). openbsd group meeting, called
c2k7 next month, and theo will gladly sneak you in so that they can
put two of you into BBQ grill (but they may free to bomit).
> That said I am in favor of 2. It is the easiest to retrofit onto
2 is not the right answer. bzzzt. bad boy. you ate 10 minutes of
sleeping time of mine.
itojun
PS: for those of you contacted me to say "sleep man", stop. my skype is
keep rebooting and my cellphone battery is dying... it's "sleep man" spam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
