Subject: RE: What end-point identifiers are needed for?

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 18:07:23 -0700

Pekka,

> Pekka Nikander wrote:
> 1a) To me, identification for mobility and multi-homing seems
> to be the easiest one.  There we are only interested in
> gaining assurance that the peer remains the same.  That is,
> for the sole purpose of mobility or multi-homing, we do not
> really care with whom we are communicating with, but only
> that the peer end-point is not changed in mid-communication
> due to mobility, multi-homing, or attacks based on mobility
> or multi-homing mechanisms.

This initially made me scream; after re-reading the text I understood
the depth of it. I will point out though that I we have never
inventoried a multi-homing solution that did not need referral and
initial rendez-vous, which is why I wonder why you split the issue in
two here.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------