I'm not sure why you would have a deployed DHCPv6 server and not deploy
a DNS resolver that listens to requests on an IPv6 socket. Can
anybody give a rationale for this? Has anybody done this? Was it a
problem?
In principle, there is nothing that would prevent you from configuring
your D
I thought I had said that I thought it should go ahead, but maybe not
explicitly. I would like to see this draft advance.
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> Returning to your idea, it sounds attractive. However, I'm not sure
> if this approach is applicable widely. In particular, I'm not sure if
> "edge devices" such as personal laptops, PDAs, cell phones..., for
> which the nodeinfo-revlookup would be most useful, have private keys
> authorized i
> So more accurately, you meant like this?
>
>NI query
> nodeinfo client --> the target
> with some private key
> <--
>NI response signed
>by the private
> to mean the diagram like this:
>
>NI query
> nodeinfo client --> the target
> with named (authorizing the name)
> and private key
> <--
>
> Regardless, I like ICMP node lookup. Information is good. Being
> able to provide information is good.
Yup. I think having the mechanism is great.
What do people think of signing the ICMP packet with the private key that
corresponds to a KEY RR that is attached to the name mentioned in th
> i may be asking a stupid question, but where do you get that private
> key from? for instance, if a node responds with "www.ietf.org",
> we could get a public key for www.ietf.org by KEY RR query, but
> not the private key (it's on ietf.org authoritative server, and
>
