Subject: (IPng 6614) Re: fragmentation reassembly

From: Richard Draves <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:04:22 -0700

> Alternative A (per interface reassembly) would be correct if an 
> implementation followed the "strong end-system model".
> 
> Are you asserting that the IPv6 archiecture uses/requires the
> "weak ES model"? (I haven't seen such a requirement stated 
> before - it would
> be good if we can nail this down in the architecture.)

In my example I used a multicast destination address in an attempt to bypass
this issue.

I prefer the strong model, so I hope if this is nailed down it's an allowed
alternative! I think the strong model is conceptually simpler when limited
scope addresses are considered and when IPsec is considered. (Security
policies are conceptually per-interface.)

Rich
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Steve Deering <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:27:40 -0700

At 5:04 PM -0700 10/9/98, Richard Draves wrote:
> scope addresses are considered and when IPsec is considered.

Any "weakness" that would be allowed would not be permitted to violate scope
boundaries, i.e., any flexibility in the choice of interface for originating
and/or accepting a packet would be limited to the subset of interfaces
belonging to the same scope instance, as determined by the scope of the
addresses in the packet.

Steve
(NOW I'm leaving!)