[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IPSP & IPv6


Ran Atkinson says:
> At the IPv6 Implementers meeting on Friday morning I gave a quick
> overview of the IPSP proposal discussed at the end of the encapsulation
> meeting last week (e.g. the packet format and basic operation outline).
[...]
> After the discussion,
> there was broad consensus on the packet format outlined below.

I'm glad that there was consensus, since this is the same format we
agreed on in the IPSP meeting, other than the fact that we declared
everyting past the SAID to be association and security transformation
dependant -- I believe that the intention was that the opaque part be
formatted as you specify, but that since the region was "opaqued" by
the security transformation one wouldn't NECESSARILY know that.

> It isn't clear to me that this format is necessarily best for IPv4.

Its not necessarily IDEAL, but it seems close enough, to me, that
having a different layout of the bits doesn't make much sense,
especially since v4 is doomed in the long run.

> It also isn't clear to me that IPv4 and IPv6 need to have the same
> packet formats, understanding that there is a lot of value in having
> the same mechanisms for both even though bit formats might vary
> slightly.

Well, having the same format will probably facilitate some kinds of
code sharing and there doesn't seem to be much of a point in having a
different format.

Perry
Follow-Ups: References: