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

RE: AH and flow label

At 2:56 PM -0400 9/10/04, Bound, Jim wrote:
>OK I am worried now.  Is there a security hole and potentially serious
>problem by not including the Flowlabel in the ICV?  We do need to ask
>this question and should not ignore it.  Then the trade offs can be
>determined.  But that data and what problem it solves should be fairly
>compelling to go tell product implementors to add it. 


Based on your comments in this message, I think there is some misunderstanding.

We are not talking about changing AH v1; we are discussing AH v2. To 
correctly implement AH v2, one already has to be able to accommodate 
64 bit sequence numbers, vs. the 32 bit sequence numbers in v1. AH v2 
is still an I-D, not an RFC. So, while a change in whether to include 
the flow label in the ICV would make v2 not backward compatible with 
v1, v2 is already not backward compatible with v1 due to the required 
sequence number support difference.

Does this help?


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