RE: Minutes / Notes

["marcelo bagnulo" <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org]En
> nombre de Masataka Ohta
> Enviado el: jueves, 24 de julio de 2003 10:45
> Para: Iljitsch van Beijnum
> CC: multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Asunto: Re: Minutes / Notes
>
>
> Iljitsch;
>
> > >> I have a few technical (not editorial) comments on some
> points in the
> > >> minutes,
> > >> which are therefore of general interest...
> >
> > > A problem is that the minutes lacks discussioin on so many errors of
> > > Iljitsch's proposal that yo are repeating my points at the meeting
> >
> > Well, let's hear it then. What are those errors?
>
> 1) On slide of "loc/id separation", the mapping from FQDN should not be
>
> 	FQDN -> ID -> Locators
>
> but should be
>
> 	FQDN -> (ID, Locators)

Are you claiming that an ID to locator mapping is not needed?

>
> to avoid extra mapping and possible security problem.
>
> 2) On slide of pros and cons of "small", all the "cons" are wrong
> as follows.
>
> 	2.1) Work with unaggregatable MAC namespace
> 	or break autoconfiguration
>
> 	Structured ID can be autoconfigured by DHCP.
>

I guess Iljitsch was talking about stateless autoconfig RFC 2462

>
> 	2.2) Can't trust incoming id-loc association
>
> 	Association between an ID and locators is secure if they
> 	are contained in a single packet.

No. It is less secure than today usage of IP addresses (not talking about
DNS)
(see previous mail)

Regards, marcelo
>
> 	2.3) If not break, certainly bend transports
>
> 	With LIN6 trick, API for TCP stays same.
>
> 	2.4) Changes to both hosts and routers
>
> 	There is no changes to routers
>
> There are other errors I didn't bothered to correct.
>
> 							Masataka Ohta
>