[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nordmark-multi6dt-shim-00.txt
El 01/11/2004, a las 9:26, Brian E Carpenter escribió:
marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
Good news. This is wrong (and I didn't realise it when analyzing
NOID).
Flow Labels are not unique on their own and cannot be used for
anything on their own. You must always lookup a 3tuple.But if the
received {Flow Label, Source Locator, Dest Locator} is in the set
{Flow Label, {Source Locators}, {Dest Locators}} corresponding to
a particular {Flow Label, Source ULID, Dest ULID} 3tuple, the shim
*knows* that it is a multi6 packet.
If the {flow label, src locator, dst locator} is used to identify
the state then you are right. But that prevents a possible
optimization with changing locator sets (think mobility) by
requiring that multi6 signaling be complete to tell the peer of the
new locator before that locator can be used as the source.
well, but in this case, there is also some security information
nneded to authenticate the new locator, so the receiver will have
additional information for the demux of this packet i guess.
Exactly. I'm kind of assuming we have something like HBA in place,
so prior knowledge of all locators is needed anyway.
Just one additional nit...
note that HBAs are particularly restrictive in this aspect, since all
locators need to be known a priori. However, even if you use
alternative schemes that don't impose such restriction, like CGAs, you
still need to add security information at least in the same packet that
carries the new locator.
So even if not all locators need to be known a priori, packets with new
locators will have to carry additional information to validate the
locator (e.g. a signature with the private key associated to a cga)
regards, marcelo
Brian
------------------------------------------
Please note that my former email address
mbagnulo@ing.uc3m.es is no longer in use
Please send mail to:
marcelo at it dot uc3m dot es
------------------------------------------