ipsec September 2009 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > ipsec archives
ipsec: Re: [IPsec] WESP #109 - WESP header alignment for IPv6

Re: [IPsec] WESP #109 - WESP header alignment for IPv6

From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman_at_nospam>
Date: Fri Sep 25 2009 - 15:07:04 GMT
To: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>


At 11:52 AM +0300 9/25/09, Yoav Nir wrote:
>On Sep 24, 2009, at 9:44 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>>At 12:13 PM -0600 9/24/09, Grewal, Ken wrote:
>>>Proposed change
>>>0 1 2 3
>>>0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>>>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>| Next Header | HdrLen | TrailerLen |V|V|E|X| Rsvd |
>>>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>| Reserved (zeros) for IPv6 alignment |
>>>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>
>>No hat:
>>
>>I agree with the idea, but I would word it a bit differently. It's not "reserved", it is actually used. "IPv6Padding (4 octets)" might make it clearer.
>
>Or maybe "extra 32 reserved bits" so that everyone can extend ESP :-)

You ended that with a smiley, but the intention is not clear. Ken proposed that the X flag *only* be used when there are IPv6 addresses, and that is what people on the call thought was right. Can you clarify whether you mean that you want this for *all* uses of WESP, or just for IPv6? If the former, why?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium



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