Hello,
(didn't see summary of discussion in Atlanta yet,
so bear with me if I would repeat something brought in there)
(and my appologies for the long email)
Paragraph 4 of the Introduction states :
The main reason for this is that some
firewalls attempt to inspect the transport header or
Hi Marc, thanks for the comments.
On 19/11/2012 10:54, Marc Lampo wrote:
Hello,
(didn't see summary of discussion in Atlanta yet,
so bear with me if I would repeat something brought in there)
(and my appologies for the long email)
Paragraph 4 of the Introduction states :
The main
Taking things out of order:
If you are really going to lock covert channels, then you will have to
block HTTPS except to known sites (and check the hostname against the IP
address, etc...) That has not, and I hope is not, and acceptable design
space for the IETF.
With regard to unknown
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6788
Title: The Line-Identification Option
Author: S. Krishnan, A. Kavanagh,
B. Varga, S. Ooghe, E. Nordmark
Status: Standards Track
Hi, all
This is not talking about a new idea. The Parameterized IP-Specific
configuration comes from the 6renum WG item, see
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-04#page-11
The draft is under 6renum WGLC, according to the comment in the Atlanta
meeting, we need your
Hello Joel,
do you mean that
because there are already other possibilities for covert channels,
this WG should not bother if its work creates yet another one ?
In the book IPv6 Security, lower half of page 32,
(ISBN-10: 1-58705-594-5 - ISBN-13: 978-1-58705-594-2)
the authors refer to the
