Subject: RE: Allocating a bit in the RFC2374 Interface Identifier

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 17:28:29 +0100

> > => For all those opposing the addition of the bit
  > > in the IID, I really hope you would carefully consider
  > > Jari's text above. For mechanisms designed to prove
  > > address ownership (relevant to securing ND, MIPv6 BUs
  > > and I can think of more), you MUST include the 
  > > distinction in the _IP_address. The IP address _is_
  > > the identifier relevant for this case, not the host
  > > name, URL or anything else. 
  > 
  > Two destination addresses, one that requires verification 
  > by stronger 
  > means, one which does not.

=> ?? Which part of my message are you answering ?

Hesham

  > 
  > -- 
  > Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
  > Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
  > Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
  > 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 18:39:35 +0200 (EET)

> => ?? Which part of my message are you answering ?

I was just pointing out a possible alternative to reserving bits in the
source addresses.