As I understand it, the question is: ESP(np=??)[IP-fragment, .., IP-fragment, padding] IPvX(np=ESP) L2
What will the ?? be. I agree that it makes no sense to mark this as IPIP. I see that we could re-use TF-ESP's number here if we got push-back. a) It would make no sense to put a TF-ESP inside an ESP in "transport" mode. b) nobody uses TF-ESP, we should just deprecate it :-) But, before we do this, we should just ask for a number. I don't see a reason to support transport inside of this formulation, I'd have to go back the document to see why it might be difficult to do, but if it's not hard to do, then don't forbid it. (We also shouldn't forbid transporting Elephants in small clown cars, but I don't recommend that either) -- Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
