Re: [Ipsec] Layer 2 processing inside IPsec

[Jan Vilhuber <vilhuber@cisco.com>]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Francis Dupont wrote:

>  In your previous mail you wrote:
>
>    >    Does any one know if such a mechanism was proposed ?
>    >
>    > => look at draft-vilhuber-hco{ip,esp}-xx.txt
>
>    I bet these have long since expired, but I'd be happy to resubmit them
>    (as individual submissions). When I first submitted these, there flood
>    of responses and comments was astounding. I got one single email about
>    it all (saying essentially "Cool.. I like it and have been thinking
>    along similar lines"; I think that might even have been you, francis :).
>
> => I remember to have sent such comment (:-)!
>

I remembered correctly then :)


>    Is the IETF now interested in this thing? Previously, comments (in
>    other working groups and other documents) were basically "Why would we
>    want to do this?" (which to me seems obvious, of course).
>
> => from MOBIKE charter (goal lists):
>
> (5) Reduction of header overhead involved with mobility-related
>   tunnels. This is a performance requirement in wireless
>   environments.
>
> So now there is a place for your work!
>

Maybe. I don't really see this as limited to mobility, though. As long
as it's in a mobility-unrelated (i.e. generic) fashion, then I don't
mind doing it there.

The scenarios I've heard so far include stuff like: Customer wants to
replace a voice T1 with a data-T1 and use Voip instead of telco
lines. But with IPsec, the number of calls he can carry on said T1 is
smaller with Voip than with telco stuff, so ipsec+voip so far is not
an option.

If we negate the packet expansion of ipsec via header compression (of
whatever flavor suits them best, I don't really have any religion on
the matter), then the number of calls under ipsec+voip can exceed the
number of calls under 'telco'.

Did that 'compressed' explanation of the scenario make sense?


>    > Can we continue offline?
>
> => this was for Francois (I expected he was French :-)
>

I can read french in a limited fashion. I can even understand it, if
you talk reasonably slowly.

Or so I think :)


>    I'm game if you want to include me on a private exchange. I still have
>    the drafts, and we can use them as a start, if you like.
>
> => IMHO you should resubmit then before the dead-line!
>

Well I won't be going to the IETF, so it matters little to me :) But
I'll gladly send them to the submission-thing again (as individual
submissions). If you want to be co-editor and present them in San
Diego, I'd welcome that.

jan


> Thanks
>
> Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr
>
> PS: BTW we have a whole team of compression (mainly ROHC as it is
> what 3GPP wants) experts. The only missing people are the people who
> are interested to buy the idea: at the moment we are at least three
> who'd like to sell it (:-)...
>

 --
Jan Vilhuber                                            vilhuber@cisco.com
Cisco Systems, San Jose                                     (408) 527-0847

_______________________________________________
Ipsec mailing list
Ipsec@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec