[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
who is right ?
I saw in the draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-v2-06.txt :
> typical IPv4 packet, on a "before and after" basis. (The "ESP
> trailer" encompasses any Padding, plus the Pad Length, and Next
> Header fields.)
> BEFORE APPLYING ESP
> ----------------------------
> IPv4 |orig IP hdr | | |
> |(any options)| TCP | Data |
> ----------------------------
>
> AFTER APPLYING ESP
> -------------------------------------------------
> IPv4 |orig IP hdr | ESP | | | ESP | ESP|
> |(any options)| Hdr | TCP | Data | Trailer |Auth|
> -------------------------------------------------
> |<----- encrypted ---->|
> |<------ authenticated ----->|
and i read in the draft-ietf-ipsec-arch-sec-06.txt :
> 5.1.2.1 IPv4 -- Header Construction for Tunnel Mode
>
> <-- How Outer Hdr Relates to Inner Hdr -->
> Outer Hdr at Inner Hdr at
> IPv4 Encapsulator Decapsulator
> Header fields: -------------------- ------------
> version 4 (1) no change
> header length constructed no change
> TOS copied from inner hdr (5) no change
> total length constructed no change
> ID constructed no change
> flags (DF,MF) constructed, DF (4) no change
> fragmt offset constructed no change
> TTL constructed (2) decrement (2)
> protocol AH, ESP, routing hdr no change
> checksum constructed constructed (2)
> src address constructed (3) no change
> dest address constructed (3) no change
> Options never copied no change
who is right ? The arch draft or the esp draft ?
Thanks,
Dominique
dbastien@galea.com
Follow-Ups: