Re: Minutes / Notes

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>> I guess Iljitsch was talking about stateless autoconfig RFC 2462
>
> RFC2462 does not give any useful definition of autoconfiguration.
>
> For example, in DNSOP WG, people, including those of IPv6 ones,
> are discussing autoconfiguration with DHCP.

Yes. But in the meeting it was pointed out after your question that 
this was referring to the features described in 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)
>
> It is as secure as the Internet today with an address binded both to
> an ID and an locator.

a) I don't think that maintaining the security level of todays Internet 
is a goal
b) Introducing loc / id separation will require mapping, one way or the 
other. Even in LIN6 there is mapping between the layers. This 
introduces new bindings that needs to be secured.

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBPyC+eqarNKXTPFCVEQK6lACg+vcEO9xMJYQZsVsqWchrCYbYA1YAn2aw
LOkWTwMscD1e9LliIt6vBds0
=AXuj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----