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

Re: IPsec !?, was: Re: CGA Use with HBA in Shim6 IETF Meeting July 10, 2006

To: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
Subject: Re: IPsec !?, was: Re: CGA Use with HBA in Shim6 IETF Meeting July 10, 2006
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@point6.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:00:44 +0200
Cc: shim6-wg <shim6@psg.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:38:18 +0300. <1c33b07561dbba7611566faf26264a0f@it.uc3m.es>

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   My comment to Jim is that MIPv6 when using RO mode have a very similar 
   behaviour than shim6 (i copy the message that i have sent to the ml 
   some weeks ago below)
   
=> but this is not true: in MIPv6 RO both addresses (locator/care-of
and ULID/home) are in all packets.

   So my question to you is: do you see relevant differences between the 
   shim6 case and the MIP RO case in terms of IPSec processing?
   
=> yes!

Regards   
   
Francis.Dupont@point6.net

Follow-Ups:
- Re: IPsec !?, was: Re: CGA Use with HBA in Shim6 IETF Meeting July 10, 2006
  - From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>

References:
- Re: IPsec !?, was: Re: CGA Use with HBA in Shim6 IETF Meeting July 10, 2006
  - From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>

Prev by Date: Re: IPsec !?, was: Re: CGA Use with HBA in Shim6 IETF Meeting July 10, 2006
Next by Date: Re: IPsec !?, was: Re: CGA Use with HBA in Shim6 IETF Meeting July 10, 2006
Previous by thread: Re: IPsec !?, was: Re: CGA Use with HBA in Shim6 IETF Meeting July 10, 2006
Next by thread: Re: IPsec !?, was: Re: CGA Use with HBA in Shim6 IETF Meeting July 10, 2006
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread