Re: Question re HIP dependency & some architectural considerations

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

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


On 2004-07-26, at 17.06, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:

> [Side Note: Also, i think that the AID should be used as IP address 
> (i.e. locator) for the initial packets, since i believe it would allow 
> to delay the security checks to the moment you need to start using an 
> alternative address.
> I mean, initial packets just use the AID as the IP address contained 
> in the received packet (no additional security checks are required) 
> and then if you need to change locators, you start performing more 
> complex.
> But this is one step ahead i guess and it doesn't really belong to 
> this part of the reasoning]

While you might not have to have the alternative locators verified with 
the initials, having them pre-computed seems more optimal performance 
wise, instead of waiting for failure detection to start the 
verification process. Having to do that if the previously verified 
locators fails at the time of attempted usage seems like something you 
will hae to live with in any case.

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQQXCEKarNKXTPFCVEQLqTgCeKyWAczHATMrTA8GKMCNG59prucEAoNY2
nQ2fTQZ7ziCf7aNURWxNY1Rd
=F3Gn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----