James, >> The "security" associated with a current, bare-bones mono-address >> host-to-host IP exchange is pretty darn small. I'd summarize it as simply >> being the assertion that a datagram probably did come from the IP address >> in the relevant field of the datagram.
JK> Well, I think an argument could be made that even this isn't guaranteed. That's why I said "probably". But my real point is that relying on that "probably" is at the core of most TCP and UDP use today. By suggesting that additional security issues go beyond the specific needs of multiaddressing, I am certainly not suggesting that those issues are minor. However I find that clarity about the goals being served helps design processes quite a bit. At the least it can help avoid feature creep, and thereby facilitate simpler design and easier adoption. JK> For mobile networks, there's a need if the mobile host is allowed to send a JK> routing update to the correspondent host. I cannot imagine anyone seriously disagreeing with you. d/ -- Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com> Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com> Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253> -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
