I agree. Procurement agencies can always elevate IPSec/IKEv2 to
a requirement if they need to, but we should not burden every
low-end implementation with it.
Brian
On 2010-07-21 09:44, basavaraj.pa...@nokia.com wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> I agree with your analysis and recommendation.
> I suppor
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Thus, it is my recommendation that the next version of the node
> requirements document make support for IPsec and IKE both SHOULDs
> only, with a lot more explanatory text that makes it clear that ther
Hi Thomas,
I agree with your analysis and recommendation.
I support the idea of specifying IPSec/IKEv2 as a SHOULD in the node
requirements I-D.
-Raj
On 7/20/10 4:27 PM, "Thomas Narten" wrote:
> Folks,
>
> A revised version of draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-05.txt has been
> published, but it
Folks,
A revised version of draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-05.txt has been
published, but it's Security section needs work. In particular, the WG
needs to answer the following questions:
- Should IPsec be a SHOULD or MUST?
- What about IKEv2?
Let me start with some background:
RFC 4294 says the
In your letter dated Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:26:22 -0400 you wrote:
>For a p2p link, I think we all agree that Address Resolution is not
>necessary. But what about the other parts?
I think that is where it goes wrong. Yes, it is true that on a p2p link you
don't need the neighbors MAC address because
Some thoughts on this thread...
One problem with the statement/question: are p2p links required to use
Neighbor Discovery, is defining exactly what ND is. ND is actually a
suite of protocols, including:
- Router discovery
- address resolution
- Neighbor Unreachabilty Detection (NUD)
- etc.
F
Hi,
thank you for your comments.
2010/7/20 Fortune HUANG :
> Hi Tim,
>
> In section 7.3 of draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations-02, the second
> paragraph reads:
> "It may of course be possible to piggy back policy information to a host in
> a Router Advertisement message, though initial co
Hi Tim,
In section 7.3 of draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations-02, the second
paragraph reads:
"It may of course be possible to piggy back policy information to a host in
a Router Advertisement message, though initial consensus seems to be that
this is a less attractive approach."
I thi
