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

> Which can also be quite problematic in certain situations (DoS, for 
> instance). The original intention of RFC 3041 was to make sure that 
> when a host moves from one prefix to another, its correspondents can't 
> track it by the interface identifier that stays the same. Being able 
> to hide within a subnet prefix that doesn't change is an extra 
> feature.

which we have available today, and that provides some privacy, so 
loosing it is loosing some capability

> Not being able to support this feature doesn't automatically 
> disqualify a multihoming solution, IMO.

i agree, but we have to be aware of what we are loosing and whether the 
trade off is acceptable

>
>> So I think the "do no harm" criteria means that the introduction
>> of multihoming support should still provide the same ability as we
>> have in IPv6 with temporary addresses.
>
> We can't let ourselves be constrained by arbitrary features of the 
> current architecture. If the features are important, sure, we must 
> support them. But having to do so just because it can be done today 
> makes has the potential to disqualify very useful multihoming 
> solutions without good reason.

Fully agree.
so let's first describe what we have and how useful this is, and then 
we can evaluate the trade off we are making when accepting a new 
solution that don't support certain features.

regards, marcelo

>
>