On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 22:13, Pekka Savola wrote: > > Not necessarily. The <anycast,unicast> binding could be stored in the > > binding cache as in MIPv6 and TCP could continue using the anycast > > address. > > That would require anycast be used as source address, or home address > option, right? (Plus some modifications in clients etc.)
And routing header the other way, of course. I don't think using an anycast address as source address would actually be a problem, since it can't be exploited for DDOS purposes. Might even have some legitimate uses with UDP. > This really should need a bit fleshening up, in a short I-D. Nudge, nudge. > Assuming sufficient ISN randomness, > > and timing requirements > > > perhaps this is not a > > problem. > > I agree but I think the total security level is not _all_ that different. Probabaly so. Requiring that the prefixes of the anycast and unicast adresses match would provide some additional confidence (assuming the prefix length were known to the client). > > Which is why existing mechanisms (e.g. MIPv6) should be reused rather > > than inventing new ones. > > I'd like to see a roadmap for these. :-) Heh, well. It IS finally in last call... Probably get it sooner than dragging any TCP changes through tsvwg, anyway. :-) MikaL -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------