> > mid-connection. I would assume that what people have in > > mind for this are the mobility mechanisms? (The alternative > > is 8+8 or some variant, which I understand to be contentious > > enough that it is a defacto non-starter.) > > The rubbing point is that identifying is not quite enough -- you need > "secure identifying" in order to avoid connection hijacking, probably > through some variation of IPSEC. Which brings us back to NATs not being > terribly helpful... > But if the mechanisms used are the mobility mechanisms, then the security mechanisms for mobility will apply... PF
- Re: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past mistak... Keith Moore
- Re: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past mi... Karl Auerbach
- Re: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Pa... Keith Moore
- Re: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6... Karl Auerbach
- RE: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repe... ned . freed
- Re: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past mistakes ... Stephen Sprunk
- Re: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past mista... ned . freed
- Re: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past mista... Randall Stewart
- RE: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated?... Paul Francis
- RE: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated?... Christian Huitema
- Re: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repe... Paul Francis
- Re: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repe... Masataka Ohta
- RE: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repe... Andreas Terzis