Steve,

We are not talking about changing AH v1; we are discussing AH v2. To correctly implement AH v2, one already has to be able to accommodate 64 bit sequence numbers, vs. the 32 bit sequence numbers in v1. AH v2 is still an I-D, not an RFC. So, while a change in whether to include the flow label in the ICV would make v2 not backward compatible with v1, v2 is already not backward compatible with v1 due to the required sequence number support difference.

I think the word "compatible" is inadequate to describe the situation completely.

It is true that AHv2 defines 64 bit sequence numbers, but the
last time I looked at the draft, the extended sequence number
space was an option that was only used when peers agreed to
use it. So AHv2 still supports the old 32 bit sequence numbers
too. The use of the 64 bit range is negotiated in IKE, and
it is not used if either side wants to avoid it. I think
this applies to the other changes of AHv2 as well.

This leads me to believe that AHv2 is an *extension* of
AHv1, and an AHv1 implementation can still work well together
with an AHv2 implementation. To put it in another way,
an AHv1 implementation may not fullfill all the requirements
of AHv2, but an AHv2 implementation will fulfill all the
requirements of AHv1. Correct?

If so, the change of the flow label ICV calculation rules
would break this compatibility between AHv1 and AHv2.
I think we need to be careful when making such changes.
Is it really necessary? Will AHv2 use a different protocol
number as Itojun suggested, or will the use of the new
ICV calculation rules be signalled in IKE? Otherwise it
is not possible to have interoperability. OTOH, assuming
we need to allocate new protocol numbers or add yet another
negotiation parameter, are the benefits of the change
worth the cost?

--Jari

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to