Re: Tunnel mode AH (Was: notes from... IETF meeting)

[David Carrel <carrel@redbacknetworks.com>]

Charlie,

no such decision was made (that I am aware of) in Memphis.  It would be
good to start thrashing that out here.

Dave

Charles Lynn wrote:
> 
> David,
> 
> > optional encryption
> >         not optional in ESP
> >         A tunnel mode must be added to the specs for AH
> 
> Did the working group decide on a mechanism, e.g., a bit in the
> RESERVED field, to indicate a "tunnel mode" in which none of the
> headers preceding the AH are to be covered by the integrity
> mechanism?
> 
> Such a mode is needed both for efficiency (hop-by-hop protection of
> every packet sent between two systems) and for extensibility (as new
> extension header versions, etc. are defined).  This was provided by
> the "ESP with integrity but not confidentiality" combination.
> 
> Charlie

---

• Prev by Date: Re: notes from developer's portion of IETF meeting
• Next by Date: Re: Small subgroups and ISAKMP/Oakley
• Prev by thread: RE: CBC IV generation in ISAKMP/Oakley
• Next by thread: ...IPSEC-ISAKMP-07.TXT
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread