Re: LSR and packet filters

[Bill Manning]

> > >>   a packet transmitted between two nonfaulty end systems A
> > >>   and B will have a high probability of being delivered,
> > >>   provided that at least one path consists of nonfaulty
> > >>   components connects the two end systems. [...] The
> > >>   network layer makes no attempt to keep conversations
> > >>   private.  If privacy is necessary, encryption must be
> > >>   done at a higher layer. Also, the network layer need not
> > >>   certify data that it delivers.  For instance, it is
> > >>   possible for some malicious node C to generate data, get
> > >>   it delivered to B, and claim that the data was from A.
> > >>   It is up to the higher layer in B to differentiate
> > >>   between corrupted or counterfeit data and real data,
> > >>   using known cryptographic techniques".
> > >
> > >Well, then he is *WRONG*. Authentication and privacy should be a function
> > >of the network layer, not the application layer because it is a lot easier
> > >to attack application layer encryption compared to lower layers.
> > 
> > Radia is a she.  Anyone who has been in this field for more than 2 years
> > should know that even if you can't guess what tli or pst or Yakov are :-)
> 
> Quoting Marcus Ranum: "I do not care who or what that is as long as it
> makes sense". 
> 
> Alex

	Oh, Radia makes sense.  Its just that your assumptions and hers
	differ. 

-- 
--bill