Re: LSR and packet filters

[bmanning () ISI EDU (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