Subject: RE: a few comments on anycast mechanisms

From: "Hesham Soliman (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:20:04 +0100

> On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 22:09, Hesham Soliman (EAB) wrote:
  > > => But is this the only problem? I mean even if there is 
  > > a way of making apps using UDP react correctly to address
  > > changes, is it not possible that some apps would want to
  > > make sure that they are still talking to the _same_peer_
  > > and not just the same application on another host?
  > 
  > I expect so. That's what I meant when I was talking about 
  > authenticating
  > the binding. Other applications might not care and might 
  > prefer a quick,
  > if insecure, redirect instead.

=> Right, but I guess the latter type of application
would not be harmed by the "extra" security.

  > 
  > > => There was a reference made that the draft deals with
  > > stateful applications.
  > 
  > Indeed. How does one recognize a stateful application on 
  > L3? [Unless we
  > require the application to indicate this explicitly.]

=> We don't need to recognise them, see my comment above.

Hesham
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Mika Liljeberg <[email-masked]>
Date: 25 Feb 2003 23:23:11 +0200

> would not be harmed by the "extra" security.

Performance?

	MikaL