Re: [Ipsec] Layer 2 processing inside IPsec

[Jan Vilhuber <vilhuber@cisco.com>]

On Sat, 26 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 :).

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).


> This is also a goal of the MOBIKE WG.
> BTW I believe we can do more in the ESP tunnel context than in the
> standard one, for instance class more header fields as "static"
> and reuse the SPI as a context number...

I agree completely. There's also ways to get rid of checksums at the
IPHC layer, and rely on the one from IPsec, allowing us to cut down
even MORE on the size of the compressed header.

> Can we continue offline?
>

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.

jan


> Thanks
>
> Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipsec mailing list
> Ipsec@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>

 --
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