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

Re: (mobile-ip) RE: (IPng 7211) RE: Last Call: Mobility Support in IPv6 to Propos ed Standard

To: Richard Draves <richdr@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: (mobile-ip) RE: (IPng 7211) RE: Last Call: Mobility Support in IPv6 to Propos ed Standard
From: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@Eng.Sun.Com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:43:06 -0800 (PST)
Cc: "'Stephen Kent'" <kent@bbn.com>, "'Quaizar Vohra'" <qv@3com.com>, mobile-ip@smallworks.com, ipng@sunroof.eng.Sun.COM, ipsec@tis.com
In-Reply-To: "Your message with ID" <4D0A23B3F74DD111ACCD00805F31D8100AF81D9E@RED-MSG-50>
Reply-To: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@Eng.Sun.Com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

> Would you agree with this statement:
> 
> "An IPsec-enabled node that is processing a routing header must perform
> inbound and outbound security policy checks, analogous to the checks
> performed by security gateways."

In interpret your statement that routing headers are somehow different
than regular forwarding. Is this what you intend?

Or do you intend?
"An router forwarding packets (whether using routing headers or not)
might implement security policy checks."

I still don't see why routing headers need to be any different.

   Erik

References:

RE: (IPng 7211) RE: Last Call: Mobility Support in IPv6 to Propos ed Standard

From: Richard Draves <richdr@microsoft.com>

Prev by Date: Re: IPSec in Minneapolis?
Next by Date: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipsec-auth-hmac-ripemd-160-96-03.txt
Prev by thread: RE: (IPng 7211) RE: Last Call: Mobility Support in IPv6 to Propos ed Standard
Next by thread: RE: (IPng 7211) RE: Last Call: Mobility Support in IPv6 to Propos ed Standard
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread