Re: doi-07/interoperability questions

["Eric L. Wong" <[e-mail]>]

No, I am not advocating such at all.  I mis-interpreted the original
post.  I get the picture now, as explained by Ben.

/eric

CJ Gibson wrote:
> 
> I don't believe we should delete either 2 or 4 but I didn't think that's
> what Ben meant by "not support AH (tunnel) and ESP (transport)". I
> assumed this meant "not support [these] together  on the same packet.
> You aren't seriously advocating the removal of AH-tunnel mode, are you?
> I also don't see the use of adding 6.
> 
> --CJ
> 

=======
Ben Rogers wrote:
> > Is this correct?
> 
> Nope.  All I'm suggesting is that we have a way to negotiate 5 followed
> by 1 in ISAKMP.  The net result being:
> 
> [IP1][upper]
> [IP2][ESP][IP1][upper]
> [IP2][AH][ESP][IP1][upper]
> 
> I used to think that 6 was necessary, but was convinced this was not a
> valid combination by Stephen Kent at the December IETF (AH is no longer
> in tunnel mode).  You can, however, emulate it using the 5+1
> combination.  This was what I was suggesting in the AH (transport) + ESP
> (tunnel) proposal.
> 
> 
> ben
> 
>