[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (IPng 5759) Re: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification, etc.]
> I believe that the Arch Doc considers a BITW Ipsec device to be a host
> implementation in that context (at least for a single homed host). If the
> same device is used in front of a router, then it inherits the security
> gateway requirements.
However, the fact that the host implementation is in two pieces allows
for the possibility that the "real host" can generate extension
headers which the "bump" doesn't know about. Actually, given modular
software components, the same thing can happen within a single host
implementation.
>From an engineering point of view, I think there should clearly be a
specified behavior in the presence of unknown extension headers..
- Bill
Follow-Ups:
References: