ipsec October 2009 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > ipsec archives
ipsec: Re: [IPsec] Difference between IPv4 and IPv6 IPsec

Re: [IPsec] Difference between IPv4 and IPv6 IPsec

From: Stephen Kent <kent_at_nospam>
Date: Wed Oct 14 2009 - 16:48:05 GMT
To: Zhen Cao <caozhenpku@gmail.com>


At 11:29 PM +0800 10/14/09, Zhen Cao wrote:
>O...
> > IPv6 hosts, like IPv4 hosts, run Linux, BSD, Windows or some other OS. With
> > most of them, the latest versions support IPv6 for IKE and IPsec.
>
>I guess we do not need tunnel model for IPv6 ipsec?

what makes you say that? unnelT mode is still needed for SG-SG SAs, or host-SG SAs.

>
>>
>>> 3) IPv4 IPsec need traversal NAT, but IPv6 don't need it, so it could
>>> support more about end to end other than site to site.
> >
>> That is assuming that IPv6 does not have NAT. I don't think we have enough
>> implementation experience to say that for sure.
>
>Can it be at-least considered one advantage of IPv6 IPSEC?

Not really.

>Another point is: "One possible advantage for IPv6 IPsec is that
>IPv6's extension header chaining feature, which is not present in
>IPv4, could be used to authenticate a secure host-to-host scenario
>exchange to a third party gateways which would provide authorized
>access into and out of secure enclaves". -quote from
>http://www.commandinformation.com/blog/?p=98. Is this valid?

I think that is an unlikely scenario, if only due to key management issues.

Steve



IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec