Re: [Roll] security for multi-link subnets

Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> Tue, 12 March 2013 20:36 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <16795.1363117565@sandelman.ca>
References: <12252.1363112423@sandelman.ca> <CAK=bVC9YV3nEtGe1LTUkg3AztiKG6dCJe8Bd4L-UkKLeuj1urg@mail.gmail.com> <16795.1363117565@sandelman.ca>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:36:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CAK=bVC8oae_OyUUCtFd+Va1J8hQKSYTbqxn0Z-Kd=J=DBuiG0g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: roll@ietf.org, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, saag@ietf.org, Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Roll] security for multi-link subnets
Precedence: list

Michael,

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> [...]
>     Ulrich> Have the issues mentioned in RFC4903 been sufficiently addressed?
>
> I think that if we were going supposed to avoid a multi-link subnet,
> that would have been objected to already.
> I think that 4903 concerns applied to all of 6lowpan and ROLL work, and
> I think that actually we did deal with all of these.

I must have missed that discussion. Can you please point me to where
and how the issues have been solved, and why the advice of RFC4903 to
not use multi-link subnets does not apply to LLNs / to RPL?

Thanks
Ulrich

[Roll] security for multi-link subnets Michael Richardson
Re: [Roll] security for multi-link subnets Ulrich Herberg
Re: [Roll] security for multi-link subnets Michael Richardson
Re: [Roll] security for multi-link subnets Don Sturek
Re: [Roll] security for multi-link subnets Ulrich Herberg