Re: security requirement for multi6

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

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

>>>>
This is not really leading us anywhere...

>>>> Then
>>>
>>> Then?
>
>> Then please post to the list.
>
> It was posted to the list on this thread on the same day you post
> your opinion, which quoted part of my post.

Uhm, I replied to a mail from Iljitsch, that had replied to your 
statement :

 >I should state an elementary fact again.
 >
 >DoS is so easy.
 >
 >That is, that you happen to find a way of DoS does not mean other
 >forms of DoS is not possible.


I then went on to say that although DOS attacks are a fact of life, 
that does not mean that when designing future solutions, and we 
discover new possible DOS attacks, and we at the same time knows how to 
fix them - that we should ignore that.

You then said in a reply to my message that

 >What is your point?
 >
 >The current situation is that there are DoS possibilities that we
 >(I, at least) already know about.

And my question was :

If you know of DOS possibilities against id/loc split models such as 
NOID or SIM or others, that are not described in 
draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-00.txt, then please mail a description of 
those to the multi6 list. If you also have suggestions or know how to 
prevent against those attacks, include that.

If you can't describe any new threats I think we can kill this thread.

- - kurtis -

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

iQA/AwUBP7Ps+KarNKXTPFCVEQJ/6wCgnLFqMdHv7ijQ87DFoWVN/7ntnw8AoJzY
7dEr2wqxkXEZ9LczDOf39I0m
=A+Rp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----