IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Consensus call on adopting <draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-08.txt>

Philip Homburg <pch-6man@u-1.phicoh.com> Fri, 22 October 2010 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b6B5344D9@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDCD83A6920 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:09:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.384
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.384 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.215, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
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 FtPHCtOVr9UW for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:09:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A2583A691F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net ([127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #2) id m1P9KDC-0001iFC; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 18:11 +0200
Message-Id: <m1P9KDC-0001iFC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: Consensus call on adopting <draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-08.txt>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-6man@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b6B5344D9@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <3F7E0126-76FB-43BA-B25F-1EE226FA73AA@gmail.com> <79ECC38B-B7AD-47B1-B6A4-E0B4F75B91F1@gmail.com> <m21v7icp8p.wl%randy@psg.com> <m1P9IGH-0001fnC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <4CC19ACF.5070706@ericsson.com> <m1P9IZF-0001gMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <4CC1A3A5.9040209@ericsson.com> <m1P9J7Y-0001VwC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <4CC1A846.4030605@ericsson.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:05:42 -0400 ." <4CC1A846.4030605@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 18:11:18 +0200
Cc: IPv6 WG Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:09:48 -0000

In your letter dated Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:05:42 -0400 you wrote:
>On 10-10-22 11:01 AM, Philip Homburg wrote:
>> Then I guess the obvious next question is how this interacts with SEND if
>> the original 3 RS messages are lost. 
>
>The AN-initiated RSs in this case will not be SEND protected RSs (since 
>we do not have the host's private key), but the edge router is still 
>free to send SEND protected RAs back to the host in response to this RS. 
>Then the host and the edge router can use SEND for protecting any 
>further ND messages.

I wonder what to make of that. If the SEND protected RS messages can be
replaced with AN-initiated (unprotected) RS messages, then what purpose does
protecting those messages serve in the SEND framework?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email