[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
No Subject
>From mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca Tue Nov 24 16: 22:55 1998
Received: from po1.bbn.com (PO1.BBN.COM [192.1.50.38])
by lox.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA05419
for <ipsec-errors@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:22:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [128.33.238.111] (TC111.BBN.COM [128.33.238.111])
by po1.bbn.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA06528;
Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:22:35 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: kent@po1.bbn.com (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v04011702b280a757305c@[128.33.238.37]>
In-Reply-To: <199811161641.LAA23421@venus.solidum.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 13:14:10 -0500
To: ipsec-errors@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: Selector fields for ICMP in Arch doc
Cc: ipsec@tis.com, ipsec-errors@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca
Resent-To: ipsec@tis.com
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 18:24:45 -0500
Resent-From: "Michael C. Richardson" <mcr@istari.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
Michael,
> One point that I think ICMP group is unanimous is that the SPD/SAD support
>for ICMP. We feel that it should be extended to include ICMP type and code
>fields as selectors.
>
> Matt Crawford has suggested that since the architecture document provides
>a minimum set, the IPv6 people can impose additional requirements if they
>need.
> The question is do we want to make these an item for the IPv4 Standard's
>Arch document? I suggest that the text read like:
> "An implementation MAY support ICMP as a selector for the SAD. If an
> implementation does support ICMP, then it MUST support both ICMP
> type and code as selectors"
>
> Stephen? What say you?
I agree that we should extend the architecture doc to include selectors for
ICMP processing, as part of a more comprehensive ICMP processing
description, under IPsecond.
> This has ramifications for IKE as well: however, if you consider type/code
>to be a 16 bit item, you might pretend that it is the "port" field. I suggest
>that type be made the MSB and code the LSB.
>
> [do we have RFCs yet???? Do we even have numbers?]
Yes, the numbers are 2401-2412. Jon assigned them prior to his death, to
allow us to cite them appropriately in a National Reserach Council report
that Bellovin and I worked on.
Steve