Re: Getting to consensus on packet number encryption

[<[e-mail]>]

On 05/04/2018 02:44, Christian Huitema wrote:
> 3) I am happy to discuss alternatives that appear simpler to implement in
> hardware, but so far the only plausible alternative is to insert an extra nonce
> in the packet header. Given birthday paradoxes and all that, this probably
> requires 8 extra bytes of overhead per packet, which is not very attractive.

Can you quantify "not very attractive" ? Given the complex ramifications of the 
alternatives, is it wise to shy away from an 8-byte overhead ? TCP options like 
timestamps weigh the same and survived...



_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.