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

[marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

El 01/08/2006, a las 15:00, Francis Dupont escribió:

>  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, how does this affects the IPSEc processing? I mean the shim6 
processing (and the MIP processing) are both performed before the IPSEc 
processing, so the ULIDs are restored to the IPv6 header address 
fields, so in both cases there is a address restoration before the 
IPSec processing

I mean, i would really like to address this issue and make the changes 
required to the shim6 protocol spec in order to satisfy this concern, 
but i simply fail to understand what the problem is... having a 
detailed statement of what the problem is and why this is different 
that what occurs in other protocols like mip would be really useful to 
move forward (or at least it would be really useful for me to 
understand what the problem is)

if others do understand the problem and could enlighten me, i would 
appreciate it...

Thanks, marcelo



>    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