IPsec re-defining IP-in-IP?

[Ben Rogers <ben@morningstar.com>]

I am a bit concerned as to the redefinition of IP-in-IP tunneling
within the proposed IPsec architecture document.  One of the reasons
RFC1825 was able to remain much smaller and simpler than the current
document was that it seems to have been content leaving tunneling to
the folks working on tunneling, while security was handled by the
folks working on security.  As such, I see no need to more or less
duplicate the information in RFC2003.

I would suggest that an explicit description of what to do with IP
protocol 4 ought to be defined in only one location.  We (the IPsec
WG) need it to provide a tunneling capability.  MobileIP needs it to
satisfy some very funtamental needs in their protocol.  There is no
reason that we cannot share the same document.  If we don't then we
run the risk of not knowing what to do within an IP stack in the event
that the two documents diverge.  We might end up making the
interpretation of IP protocol 4 context dependent, the "IPsec protocol
4" used whenever our parsing engine finds a protocol 4 in an AH or
ESP, and the "RFC2003 protocol 4" in all other cases.


ben

---

Follow-Ups:

• Re: IPsec re-defining IP-in-IP?
• From: Dave Johnson <dbj@cs.cmu.edu>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: a simple question, I hope. Why do we need tunnel mode?
• Next by Date: Re: a simple question, I hope. Why do we need tunnel mode?
• Prev by thread: RE: Last Call for IPSEC
• Next by thread: Re: IPsec re-defining IP-in-IP?
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread