Re: [DNA] Route vs Advertise

[Greg Daley <greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au>]

Hi James and Erik,

James Kempf wrote:
> Out implementation doesn't work that way. It just uses the prefixes in the
> certificate to check whether the prefixes are certified or not, and drops
> those that are uncertified if the host is configured to do so. It doesn't
> uses the certification to determine what addresses to send to what router
> since, as Erik says, that is not in the RFC 2461 conceptual model.

Thanks for your clarification James.

I wasn't explicitly referring to any particular codebase in my surmise.

Greg

>             jak
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Erik Nordmark" <erik.nordmark@sun.com>
> To: <greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au>
> Cc: "Sathya Narayanan" <sathya@research.panasonic.com>; "Dna"
> <dna@eng.monash.edu.au>
> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 10:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Route vs Advertise
> 
> 
> 
>>Greg Daley wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The issue in SEND is essentially that in some circumstances we want to
>>>guarantee that a router is actually delegated authority to route for
>>>that prefix.   This is in the Certificate, not the PIO.
>>>
>>>I'd guess that the origin of the prefix doesn't matter (which RA the
>>>PIO arrives in), although the certificate would indicate that only
>>>those prefixes which are similarly authorized should be used as next
>>>hops for packets with that source address.
>>
>>Is this something which has been implemented in the host SEND
>>implementations? I can see it being quite hard since it fits neither the
>>BSD-style code, nor the RFC 2461 conceptual model of a host.
>>
>>    Erik
>>
> 
> 
>