[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: cb64

To: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
Subject: Re: cb64
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 13:38:09 +0200
Cc: Multi6 <multi6@ops.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <3725F22A-CA74-11D8-A131-000D93ACD0FE@it.uc3m.es>
References: <Roam.SIMC.2.0.6.1088498613.2222.nordmark@bebop.france> <DE243A24-CA6E-11D8-9359-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <3725F22A-CA74-11D8-A131-000D93ACD0FE@it.uc3m.es>

On 30-jun-04, at 11:02, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:

But then this locator change wouldn't be protected by the key, so what's the point of having it?

We are considering cb64,

Just goes to show you (well, me) that looking at the subject once in a while isn't a bad idea... Sorry guys.

References:
- Re: cb64
  - From: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>
- Re: cb64
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
- Re: cb64
  - From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>

Prev by Date: Re: revision of architecture draft is now published
Next by Date: RE: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches
Previous by thread: Re: cb64
Next by thread: Re: cb64
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread