e
authenticated. Both of these make far too many assumptions.
Aside from whether this is "OK," there is inconsistency between these
drafts. 2461 does not seem to account for the DoS attack which 2462 is
trying to avoid.
Comments?
--
T.J. Knive
on 2/2/01 5:26 AM, JINMEI Tatuya / wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 23:06:31 -0800,
>>>>>> "T.J. Kniveton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> However, RFC 2462 has stated that unless router advertisements are
>> authentica
[I am crossposting to Mobile-IP since I am throwing in some info about
mobiles]
on 2/2/01 7:41 AM, Matt Crawford wrote:
> Is it OK with everyone that a node that has been turned off for a while,
> could possibly be *unusable* on a network for two hours? We can not say
>
> I think "unusuable" is
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
>
> >Now the mobile node is turned on, on September 25th, in a visited network.
> >It starts receiving router advertisements for the local link. It configures
> >a link-local care-of address. It wants to contact its Home Agent to register
> >a binding for its care-
he issue (beyond the scope of the
draft, if need be)?
> layer that provides the Mobile Node with the home prefix in the first
> place, must also provide the new renumbered home prefix in cases like
> this when the Mobile Node is switched off during renumbering.
Good point
he issue (beyond the scope of the
draft, if need be)?
> layer that provides the Mobile Node with the home prefix in the first
> place, must also provide the new renumbered home prefix in cases like
> this when the Mobile Node is switched off during renumbering.
Good point
e
authenticated. Both of these make far too many assumptions.
Aside from whether this is "OK," there is inconsistency between these
drafts. 2461 does not seem to account for the DoS attack which 2462 is
trying to avoid.
Comments?
--
T.J. Knive
re is a way around this, using DNS, but that requires
services that may not be available on the visited network. I can not see
a general and acceptable way to avoid this problem, but I remain open to
suggestions.
Thanks,
--
T.J. Kniveton
NOKIA Research Center
-
he issue (beyond the scope of the
draft, if need be)?
> layer that provides the Mobile Node with the home prefix in the first
> place, must also provide the new renumbered home prefix in cases like
> this when the Mobile Node is switched off during renumbering.
Good point
he issue (beyond the scope of the
draft, if need be)?
> layer that provides the Mobile Node with the home prefix in the first
> place, must also provide the new renumbered home prefix in cases like
> this when the Mobile Node is switched off during renumbering.
Good point
he issue (beyond the scope of the
draft, if need be)?
> layer that provides the Mobile Node with the home prefix in the first
> place, must also provide the new renumbered home prefix in cases like
> this when the Mobile Node is switched off during renumbering.
Good point
he issue (beyond the scope of the
draft, if need be)?
> layer that provides the Mobile Node with the home prefix in the first
> place, must also provide the new renumbered home prefix in cases like
> this when the Mobile Node is switched off during renumbering.
Good point
he issue (beyond the scope of the
draft, if need be)?
> layer that provides the Mobile Node with the home prefix in the first
> place, must also provide the new renumbered home prefix in cases like
> this when the Mobile Node is switched off during renumbering.
Good point
he issue (beyond the scope of the
draft, if need be)?
> layer that provides the Mobile Node with the home prefix in the first
> place, must also provide the new renumbered home prefix in cases like
> this when the Mobile Node is switched off during renumbering.
Good point
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [Fwd: Re: IPv6 Prefix Deprecation Problem]
> C
not, note
that prefix information about the home network will be available for
inspection along the path the RA travels. This security issue is the
same as what exists in the current version.
I am open for comments on this idea.
he issue (beyond the scope of the
draft, if need be)?
> layer that provides the Mobile Node with the home prefix in the first
> place, must also provide the new renumbered home prefix in cases like
> this when the Mobile Node is switched off during renumbering.
Good point
he issue (beyond the scope of the
draft, if need be)?
> layer that provides the Mobile Node with the home prefix in the first
> place, must also provide the new renumbered home prefix in cases like
> this when the Mobile Node is switched off during renumbering.
Good point
he issue (beyond the scope of the
draft, if need be)?
> layer that provides the Mobile Node with the home prefix in the first
> place, must also provide the new renumbered home prefix in cases like
> this when the Mobile Node is switched off during renumbering.
Good point
he issue (beyond the scope of the
draft, if need be)?
> layer that provides the Mobile Node with the home prefix in the first
> place, must also provide the new renumbered home prefix in cases like
> this when the Mobile Node is switched off during renumbering.
Good point
he issue (beyond the scope of the
draft, if need be)?
> layer that provides the Mobile Node with the home prefix in the first
> place, must also provide the new renumbered home prefix in cases like
> this when the Mobile Node is switched off during renumbering.
Good point
he issue (beyond the scope of the
draft, if need be)?
> layer that provides the Mobile Node with the home prefix in the first
> place, must also provide the new renumbered home prefix in cases like
> this when the Mobile Node is switched off during renumbering.
Good point
he issue (beyond the scope of the
draft, if need be)?
> layer that provides the Mobile Node with the home prefix in the first
> place, must also provide the new renumbered home prefix in cases like
> this when the Mobile Node is switched off during renumbering.
Good point
on 2/15/01 1:46 PM, Powell, Ken wrote:
> Under this proposal, the Mobile Node will have to re-establish the
> Security Association between the Home Agent and its Care-Of Address
> every time it moves to support IPsec requirements for Router
> Advertisements. How does this fit in with the process
ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --------
--
T.J. Kniveton
NOKIA Research
IP is to modify/enhance existing
protocols as little as possible to support mobility, adding message
types when it's not necessary is the wrong thing to do.
--
T.J. Kniveton
NOKIA Research Center
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing
Erik Nordmark wrote:
>
> > And finally, a silly question: if they do not have any difference,
> > why can't RH/HAO as well be considered the generic approach usable also
> > elsewhere?
>
> Deserves a silly answer.
> Yes, we should get IPsec to stop using IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling
> and instead use
27 matches
Mail list logo
