lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1996]   [Oct]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: unusual startup messages
>>>>> "Adam" == ADAM Sulmicki <adam@cfar.umd.edu> writes:

-> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 21:01:48 -0500 (EST) From: ADAM Sulmicki
-> <adam@cfar.umd.edu>
->
-> I don't think Linus is in favour this this. As IMHO this can be
-> entirely done in user space, and we don't need an big, bloated
-> kernel. But even we do it, what would be use of it? There is
-> already suppport for encrypted volumes, the secure rcp/telnet/
-> etc are alredy done by ssh stuff, and we are not going to crypt
-> memory ;)
->
-> Yes, but isn't some form of crypt in the kernel necessary for a
-> full ipv6 implementation?

Adam> Hmm, yeah, in this case would be quite sensible idea to have
Adam> support for, perhaps as modules, thought there are few
Adam> drawback for this implementation:

Adam> 1) [adam@ax src]$ ls linux/net/ipv6/ README [adam@ax src]$

That is easy to fix:
[roque@dolphin linux]$ ls net/ipv6/*.c
net/ipv6/addrconf.c net/ipv6/mcast.c
net/ipv6/af_inet6.c net/ipv6/ndisc.c
net/ipv6/datagram.c net/ipv6/protocol.c
net/ipv6/exthdrs.c net/ipv6/raw.c
net/ipv6/icmp.c net/ipv6/reassembly.c
net/ipv6/ipv6_input.c net/ipv6/sit.c
net/ipv6/ipv6_output.c net/ipv6/sysctl_net_ipv6.c
net/ipv6/ipv6_route.c net/ipv6/tcp_ipv6.c
net/ipv6/ipv6_sockglue.c net/ipv6/udp.c

Adam> 2) I think recalling that I have read somewhere recently
Adam> (was it PC Week ??) that IETF has put the IPv6 on backburner
Adam> for about a year or so because bussines did not like current
Adam> implementation. (limited top level domains)

That is complete nonsense. IPv6 is not on backburner at all, i don't think
there is any criticism on the current implementations besides not being
complete yet and TLDs have nothing to do with a network protocol.

Adam> 3) rfc1883 says that it is volunatry, so we need support on
Adam> the other end. So let hope that Linux boxes will dominate
Adam> world by time when IPv6 will be standard :)

Adam> quote from rfc1183.txt ( Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6)
Adam> Specification )

Adam> o Authentication and Privacy Capabilities

Adam> Extensions to support authentication, data
Adam> integrity, and (optional) data confidentiality are specified
Adam> for IPv6.

The important part is:

Security Considerations

This document specifies that the IP Authentication Header [RFC-1826]
and the IP Encapsulating Security Payload [RFC-1827] be used with
IPv6, in conformance with the Security Architecture for the Internet
Protocol [RFC-1825].


./Pedro.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:38    [W:0.243 / U:2.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site