[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: simple security

To: "Mohacsi Janos" <mohacsi@niif.hu>, "Konrad Rosenbaum" <konrad@silmor.de>
Subject: RE: simple security
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:20:33 -0500
Cc: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1003290909270.74067@mignon.ki.iif.hu>
References: <001501caca91$769511b0$63bf3510$@org> <4BAA2BF5.20400@cisco.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1003241713360.74067@mignon.ki.iif.hu> <201003281841.48962@zaphod.konrad.silmor.de> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1003290909270.74067@mignon.ki.iif.hu>

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Mohacsi Janos
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 12:19 AM
To: Konrad Rosenbaum
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: simple security

>The current RFC 3484 does not cope properly with ULA addresses, 

What do you mean by not cope?  ULA and the GUA have global scope and the
longest prefix match works fine for packet forwarding if both a ULA and
a GUA are configured on a network interface.  I don't see any gotcha
with RFC 3484 with use of ULA or with use of ULA and a GUA on a network
interface.

Hemant

Follow-Ups:
- RE: simple security
  - From: Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu>

References:
- simple security
  - From: "Lee Howard" <lee@asgard.org>
- Re: simple security
  - From: Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>
- Re: simple security
  - From: Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu>
- Re: simple security
  - From: Konrad Rosenbaum <konrad@silmor.de>
- Re: simple security
  - From: Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu>

Prev by Date: RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04
Next by Date: RE: simple security
Previous by thread: Re: simple security
Next by thread: RE: simple security
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread