Re: Comments on draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01

Hi,

El 09/06/2004, a las 16:10, Erik Nordmark escribió:

>> Well, I don't know whether hosts should use the same identifier for
>> transactions with different third parties. Here, to, there are privacy
>> implications. If I had a choice, I would go for the minimal possible
>> requirement, i.e. an identifier for the abstract context for which
>> continuity of communications is desired. I would also not assume that 
>> we
>> should combine identifier and port number.
>
> Section 8 in the draft talks about privacy considerations.

i guess that also in this point, we should follow the general criteria 
of not making things worse than currently are.
SO the level of privacy provided in current single homed IPv6 should be 
provided in multihoming, i guess.

(a possibility could be to include the current level of privacy support 
in IPv6, just as the other current state of the art are presented.)

regards, marcelo

>
> Given that the stack doesn't (and can't) know the continuity 
> requirements
> for some communication - this can be a lot more than the lifetime of
> a transport connection - I think we need to have identifiers that can 
> be
> stable for more than the lifetime of a single transport connection.
>
> Otherwise, even simple application patternss such as "call me back 
> when done"
> (which would cause a second transport connection in the reverse 
> direction)
> would fail.
>
>   Erik
>
>
>