Re: IVs, summary of discussion

[Steve Kent <kent@BBN.COM>]

Phil,

	I agree with your observation about the relative costs of
encryption and header space, in the context of slow links.  However, I
agree with Hillarie about the IP pseudo header being a hack that, in
hindsight, was a bad idea.  One needs to pass up to higher layers the
IP address, and option info relevant to those layers, and the offset
into the buffer for the start of the next layer.  But the pseudo
checksum poses undue problems for the transition from IPv4 to v6.
(Also, the IP address info is relevent PCI all the way up the stack,
and does not constitute a layering violation.)

Steve

---

References:

• Re: IVs, summary of discussion
• From: Phil Karn <karn@qualcomm.com>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: IVs, summary of discussion
• Next by Date: Re: IVs, summary of discussion
• Prev by thread: Re: IVs, summary of discussion
• Next by thread: Re: IVs, summary of discussion
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread