Hesham,
It sounds to me this brings no real value to IPsec. You must be seeing
something I don't could you please state why your so supportive for this
change and what are your technical reasons that will add value for IPv6?
Thanks
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [m
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
20.51% |8 | 17.85% |38445 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
20.51% |8 | 17.80% |38334 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
7.69% |3 | 13.27% |28566 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
7.69% |3 | 8.26% |177
I agree with the drawback you see and it's not ideal.
But I also think the whole flow label story was inconsistent
and we finally have concensus on how we want to use it.
> => this is something we should not reproach the ipsec WG for...
=> I wasn't reproaching the IPsec WG. Please d
Hi all,
This email is mainly addressed to the authors of RFC3314, and somehow to RFC3177.
During the last APNIC meeting, a week ago, we had some interesting discussions
regarding the RFC3177 recommendation of /48 for sites (even SOHO) and what it seems a
contradiction with 3GPP recommendations,
In your previous mail you wrote:
OK I am worried now. Is there a security hole and potentially serious
problem by not including the Flowlabel in the ICV?
=> according to RFC 3697 there is fortunately none. More, all attacks
on flow labels can't be mitigated by including the flow label in
In your previous mail you wrote:
I agree with the drawback you see and it's not ideal.
But I also think the whole flow label story was inconsistent
and we finally have concensus on how we want to use it.
=> this is something we should not reproach the ipsec WG for...
Given the f
In your previous mail you wrote:
>I have seen several projects started that intend on taking
>advantage of RFC 3697.
>
> => note the RFC 3697 explains why the protection of the flow label is
> not in fact useful. Can you give more details, for instance are flow
> labels
