On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Francis Dupont wrote: [snip] > 2. We will have a two-phased approach to the MIPv6 spec and > > => no, a two phase approach won't work because we'll stay at > the first phase. [snip]
If we'd stay at the first phase, that'd probably mean that the stateful network access control mechanism wasn't attractive and wide-spread enough? -- Which is one of the points here. If one would want to differentiate between "network access controlled (no checks in end-nodes)" and "in god we trust, others must be checked", perhaps Home Address Option sub-options could be used? (or identically defined another HAO.) > And you put the burden on the wrong people: > this is an ingress filtering problem, not a MIPv6 one, so > the solution should be in an ingress filtering improvement, > not in a new restriction for MIPv6. (a bit tongue-in-cheek) If QWERTY working group would define a new mechanism for storing effective source address in a varying location of IP header chain, under some destination option's freshly defined fourth option's third sub-option (padded to 2n+x), would digging that out and just coping with it be "ingress filtering problem" too? If AZERTY working group would make new requirements (caused by said working group's new proposal) for ingress filtering, so that it could not be done in practise, would finding new ways to do ingress filtering befall ingress filtering people too? -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
