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

RE: AH and flow label



At 2:49 PM -0400 9/10/04, Bound, Jim wrote:
>Agreed and knew that when I sent it.  Sorry.  I think any field that can
>be legitmately altered by a standard set of interoperablity specs should
>not be in the ICV.  I can see the add value of authenticating the flow
>label but I have concerns over the benefit of that and performance and
>change to the implementations.
>
>Why do you think this is important and what problem does it solve?
>
>thanks
>/jim

I don't necessarily think it is important, but we either have to 
change the processing description or change the rationale for why we 
omit it from the ICV, since the current rationale is wrong.

BTW, I don't think there would be a noticeable performance issue if 
it were included.  Unfortunately, AH is slow because of the need to 
skip over selected fields already, so this is adding to that pain, 
but probably not by much :-)

Steve

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------