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

Re: 6to4 security questions

To: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: 6to4 security questions
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 23:16:10 +0100
Cc: Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@sun.com>, Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>, v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Delivery-date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:16:36 -0800
Envelope-to: v6ops-data@psg.com
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:59:22 +0100. <3DDBE99A.42CD1C41@hursley.ibm.com>
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   I'm aware of all that, but you're not answering my question.
   Is the risk significant?
   
=> the risk was considered enough significant for the home address
option in mobile IPv6 to kill triangular routing, i.e., to drop
packets with a HAO which can not be verified (no IPsec SA or
binding cache entry).
If you consider it is no significant, I'll ask to reopen the HAO
discussion in mobile IPv6.

Regards

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

References:
- Re: 6to4 security questions
  - From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>

Prev by Date: Re: 6to4 relay deployment [Re: 6to4 security questions]
Next by Date: RE: 6to4 security questions
Previous by thread: Re: 6to4 security questions
Next by thread: Re: 6to4 security questions
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread