IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)

"C. Harald Koch" <chk@utcc.utoronto.ca> Wed, 19 February 1997 19:06 UTC

Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id OAA25948 for ipsec-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:06:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <97Feb19.141142est.11653@elgreco.rnd.border.com>
To: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@apollo.hp.com>
cc: ipsec@tis.com
Subject: Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
References: <199702191805.AA011615518@relay.hp.com>
In-reply-to: sommerfeld's message of "Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:05:17 -0500". <199702191805.AA011615518@relay.hp.com>
From: "C. Harald Koch" <chk@utcc.utoronto.ca>
X-uri: <URL:http://chk.home.ml.org/>
X-Face: )@F:jK?*}hv!eJ}*r*0DD"k8x1.d#i>7`ETe2; hSD2T!:Fh#wu`0pW7lO|Dfe'AbyNy[\Pw z'.bAtgTM!+iq2$yXiv4gf<:D*rZ-|f$\YQi7"D"=CG!JB?[^_7v>8Mm; z:NJ7pss)l__Cw+.>xUJ) did@Pr9
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:10:33 -0500
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

In message <199702191805.AA011615518@relay.hp.com>, Bill Sommerfeld writes:
> 
> Hmm.  Wouldn't correct handling of MTU discovery/DF through the ipsec
> `tunnel' also handle this problem?

Yes, but isn't that a Hard Problem (tm) unless you keep state (either
"virtual interfaces" or individual packets) at the tunnel endpoints? How
else do you convert an ICMP Fragmentation Required message for a tunneled
(and auth'd and 'crypted) packet back into an ICMP Fragmentation Required
for the original, untunnelled packet?

-- 
Harald Koch <chk@utcc.utoronto.ca>

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status