Subject: [Mip6] [issue43] Review by Steve Bellovin: Dropping of ESP packets

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 14:06:35 +0000

Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]> added the comment:

Steve writes: 
> >	A more general analysis of the issues presented by 5.1 is that
> >	firewalls are topological elements, not logical ones.  Thus, an
> >	MN behind a firewall is protected by it/subject to its rules,
> >	because it's part of the protected topology.  The particular
> >	issues discussed here are just special cases of that situation.

would it be useful to add the following sentence at the beginning of section 
5.1? 

this would change the text from: 

"
   Let's consider a MN A, in a network protected by firewall(s).
"

to:

"
   Let us consider a MN A in a network protected by a firewall (or even 
multiple firewalls). 
   Since the firewall is a topological element the protection it offers is 
based on its packet filter rules because it is part of the protected topology.
"

_________________________________________________
Mip6 issue tracker <[email-masked]>
<http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/mip6/issue43>
_________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6