Re: [DNA] Confirming today's face-to-face meeting decisions

[Sathya Narayanan <sathya@research.panasonic.com>]

Erik -

<snip>
> Indeed.
> 
> But I think that we shouldn't constrain our thinking about the 
> latter to 
> the case when only one router can answer the question about the 
> landmark; one could have the routers share this so that any of 
> them can 
> answer the question.
Agreed. I thought about this - it has some advantages. My concern with this is, by allowing any router to respond, we are brnging back the problem of requiring random-delay before RA response. With the current AR being the 'chosen' one to respond first, we could have the other routers go through the normal (or preferably a new) random process and this will help with mitigating the packet loss problem as well. 

<snip>
> Why would the RAs that carry linkids need to be secured any more 
> than 
> RAs that carry prefixes and default router information? I don't 
> understand.
> It might be that the Rtr-to-Rtr messages have different concerns 
> than 
> the RAs and other ND messages, but I haven't seen any semblance of 
> a 
> threat analysis that makes even this case. But that's separate 
> from the 
> RAs adverting linkids to hosts.
Yeah - I was primarily referring to the Rtr-to-Rtr messages having different and possibly new set of concerns. I don't have any threat analysis on this either (thats why I was careful to qualify my earlier comment), but my gut feeling is that it adds new security requirements. I think we should look into this possible security overhead as part of the cost of doing link-scoped identifier.

Sathya