[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Mip6] Re: RFC2136 and IP address ownership
[ Moderators note: Post was moderated, either because it was posted by
a non-subscriber, or because it was over 20K.
With the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss and therefore
delete relevant posts by non-subscribers.
Please fix your subscription addresses. ]
Olaf M. Kolkman wrote:
I can briefly describe whats in the draft. what we have done so
far is to let the home agent do the update (both direct and
reverse tree) instead of the mobile node. this assumes the home
agent is more trusted than the mobile node.
And would the mobile node have an IP6 address on the access network
(i.e. roaming far away from its home agent) for which it would need to
update the reverse DNS?
no. the DNS update is only for the home address. and the
home address is allocated from the home link.
Vijay
My general thinking goes into the direction of SIG0 based
authentication. I think that can be made to work but I need to
understand the relation between the maintainer of the DNS in the
forward tree(s), the maintainer of the DNS in the reverse tree, and the
maintainer of the mobile agent, the mobile client and the networks
involved.
Obviously you will need to store the client's public keys somewhere in
the DNS, that could be a duty of the home agent during the
bootstrapping phase. The maintainers of the several pieces of DNS
namespace should then put trust into those keys.
This technology (SIG0 based dynamic updates of secured zones) works today.
And now I should really scheadule some time to read about the general
MIP6 architecture, for now I am just thinking out loud, a bad practice :-)
--Olaf
-----------------------------------------------------------
Olaf M. Kolkman
NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>