> On Aug 25, 2022, at 00:52, Erik Kline <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I.e., either this document needs to formally update RFC 4303 by allowing any
> > number or another IP protocol number must be requested to the IANA.
>
> As I pointed out in my previous email that is not the case.
>
> The RFC4303 ESP has a Next Header field which contains indicates what
> type of packet is inside the ESP packet. It typically contains IP
> Protocol Numbers, but not always. Thats why the RFC4303 above says
> "chosen from the set of IP Protocol Numbers".
>
> I disagree. 4303 S2.6 is very clearly talking about the Protocol Numbers
> registry (the example of "41 means IPv6" is one of the things that give it
> away).
>
> I think this document needs to request a protocol number from IANA.
Well of course this isn't the correct route. And that's because there is
absolutely no reason to remove 1 of the 256 IP protocol numbers from the
internet for IPsec only use.
This has been understood by everyone in IPsec, as Tero, the IPsec WG chair, has
tried to explain.
IPsec has not been reserving IP protocol numbers since the text you unable to
get past was written -- because it makes no sense to. At *most* we need to
document that to clear this DISCUSS.
Thanks,
Chris.
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
