Subject: Re: Re: [netlmm] About Virtual address of Access Router

From: "John.zhao"<[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:41:16 -0500

Hi,Julien

    Just you have said that the same public/private key pair can be used everywhere. But what is the problem? Because we only need security. If it can gurantee, then that is ok.
	So,it didn't impact the security between MN and difference AR.
	From another side,if AR can get the user profile or the link-local address will be used as the source of RA. Then that should be considered that this MN has been authenticated. So,in this case it can use the previous CGA cryptographical materials. The address only is a argument. We can treate the CGA as new one every time when the AR is changed. But it has the same value.
	At last, because the default gateway didn't changed, and network didn't changed within one netlmm domain. Why the MN need to do a ND? Without the need to do ND,why we need the secure ND?
	My two cents.
	
			Best Rgds,
Thanks,

	　　　　　　　　John.zhao
　	　	　　　　　[email-masked]
　　　	　	　　　　　　2007-07-26
======= 2007-07-26 18:26:00 You have said:=======

>Hi John,
>
>Using the same link-local for the MAG everywhere the MN 
>roams break SEND since it means the same 
>public/private key pair has to be used everywhere.
>
>--julien
>
>On Thursday 26 July 2007, John.zhao wrote:
>> Hi,guys
>>
>>     To keep synchronize,anyone can comment on:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhao-netlm
>>m-ra-consideration-01.txt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 	Best Rgds,
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> 	　　　　　　　　John.zhao
>>
>> 　　	　	　　　　　[email-masked]
>> 　　　	　	　　　　　　2007-07-25

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

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