[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Middleboxes [Was: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself]

To: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com>, "Brian E Carpenter" <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Subject: RE: Middleboxes [Was: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself]
From: "Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 09:51:56 -0700
Cc: "shim6" <shim6@psg.com>

> >> So unless having potential middlebox implementation compatibility
> >> is  a great hardship we shouldn't break it.
> 
> > But I think it will be a great hardship, simply because of IPSEC.
> 
> Wouldn't IPsec be just another higher layer protocol to the shim?

Actually, I would like an option to run the shim inside IPSEC. It
prevents meddling by intermediate boxes. It also mitigates the privacy
risks associated with shim6. 

-- Christian Huitema

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Middleboxes [Was: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself]
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
- shim and IPsec placement [Was: Middleboxes]
  - From: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Middleboxes [Was: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself]
Next by Date: Re: soft state (was Re: shim6 and bit errors in data packet headers
Previous by thread: Re: Middleboxes [Was: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself]
Next by thread: shim and IPsec placement [Was: Middleboxes]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread