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

RE: Derived versus Explicit IV

To: "'ipsec@tis.com'" <ipsec@tis.com>
Subject: RE: Derived versus Explicit IV
From: Roy Pereira <rpereira@TimeStep.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 11:15:51 -0400
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

>
>If the new ESP plus new mandatory to implement transforms are *not*
>backwards compatible *ON THE WIRE*, then a new IP protocol value for ESP
>will be required.
>
RFC1827 (ESP) only specifies a 32 bit number to represent the SPI.  The
rest of the ESP payload was dependent on the actual transform.  RFC1829
added an IV, data, padding, pad length, and the next protocol fields.

Thus the new ESP is compatible with the old ESP?

Follow-Ups:

Re: Derived versus Explicit IV

From: "C. Harald Koch" <chk@tor.securecomputing.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Derived versus Explicit IV
Next by Date: Re: Derived versus Explicit IV
Prev by thread: Re: Derived versus Explicit IV
Next by thread: Re: Derived versus Explicit IV
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread