IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal.

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Wed, 30 June 2010 11:18 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DDF33A69AA for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 04:18:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.801, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wBjceDNsMX2o for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 04:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A0ED3A68B9 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 04:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90D1F2CED4; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:18:30 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XRTws9acCBZ2; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:18:29 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0C1E2CC62; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:18:29 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <4C2B2805.5060307@piuha.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:18:29 +0300
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
References: <BFD8FF22-FD36-436E-9985-7BFA2E234081@gmail.com> <201006290803.34192.henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de><ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0333F14C@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET><4C2A723E.3020806@piuha.net><ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0333F6EC@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <4C2B1762.1070600@piuha.net> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0333F7DC@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
In-Reply-To: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D0333F7DC@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal.
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:18:26 -0000

Christopher,

> Any references? Right now I don't follow how that would work.
> But willing to be educated.
>   

I'm just waving my hands and I have no references. But RFC 3971 does 
something similar for SLAAC. Its not the only approach, over the years 
people have looked at different ways in allocating mobile IPv6 home 
addresses as well.

> But the key point is I think that security really needs to be
> up front, part of the requirements/problem statement, and hence
> in the charter. This really is a case where security cannot be
> an afterthought.
>   

OK. That makes sense.

Jari

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email