> One comment I would like to make about this topic, which I > don't think > has been addressed (no pun intended), is that this 'bit > method' for addresses > essentially can identify nodes which are 'potentially' > mobile.
=> Not really, since it can be used for securing ND as well. You can definitely pick a MN by the contents of every packet it sends when it uses RO. So, the bit does not add anymore here than the RH or the HAO would. HMIPv6 has some extensions to help with anonymity but of course they're not to be used on a global scale. Hesham I am not a > security expert, so this may not really be a threat, but my > feeling is that > most mobile devices will probably be small devices, that are > battery/processor/l2 (i.e. wireless) limited devices. By > identifying > nodes this way, do we open up the possibility for addition > DoS attacks > (small device with limited processor, battery & bandwidth > capacity) is > more susceptible to flooding attacks. Is this an issue? > > thanks, > John > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
