I would also add a few cents.
At 11:29 PM +0800 10/14/09, Zhen Cao wrote:
>O...
> > IPv6 hosts, like IPv4 hosts, run Linux, BSD, Windows or some other
OS. With
> > most of them, the latest versions support IPv6 for IKE and IPsec.
>
>I guess we do not need tunnel model for IPv6 ipsec?
>what makes you say that? unnelT mode is still needed for SG-SG SAs,
>or host-SG SAs.
Also tunnel mode will still be required for IPv6 to 4 tunnels as long as
IPv4 addresses exist and IPv6 nodes need to be interoperable with them.
>
>>
>>> 3) IPv4 IPsec need traversal NAT, but IPv6 don't need it, so it
could
>>> support more about end to end other than site to site.
> >
>> That is assuming that IPv6 does not have NAT. I don't think we have
enough
>> implementation experience to say that for sure.
>
>Can it be at-least considered one advantage of IPv6 IPSEC?
>Not really.
Further motivations for NAT in IPv6 includes need for private networks
i.e. a company wants to only have one machine to communicate with
external world so every computer on that private network goes through
that single machine.
Also, cost of owning a live ip vs. hosting a private network behind a
single live ip would still be attractive, even for security reasons too.
>Another point is: "One possible advantage for IPv6 IPsec is that
>IPv6's extension header chaining feature, which is not present in
>IPv4, could be used to authenticate a secure host-to-host scenario
>exchange to a third party gateways which would provide authorized
>access into and out of secure enclaves". -quote from
>http://www.commandinformation.com/blog/?p=98. Is this valid?
>I think that is an unlikely scenario, if only due to key management
issues.
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
