IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 RH (was Re: SPD issues)

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr> Tue, 28 October 2003 15:17 UTC

Received: from lists.tislabs.com (portal.tislabs.com [192.94.214.101]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28910 for <ipsec-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:17:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id GAA26516 Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:00:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200310281110.h9SBA8HN087057@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
To: Eric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
cc: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: Re: IPv6 RH (was Re: SPD issues)
In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:16:32 +0100. <5.1.0.14.2.20031028094811.02f47220@localhost>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:10:08 +0100
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) at enst-bretagne.fr
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   This is very close to yet another tunnel in disguise.

=> yes, draft-deering-ipv6-encap-addr-deletion-00.txt develops
this argument. But can we conclude that mobile IPv6 should be
considered as tunneled traffic, i.e., an IPsec node which is
not one of the end-points of the tunnel should only look at
the external IP header?

Regards

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email