> On Nov 29, 2019, at 2:23 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> wrote:
>> Additionally, I'm not sure that we should be so quick to say that the
>> IP-TFS payload would never be used outside of ESP; as was pointed out
>> by Michael using this payload does solve the PMTU issue with (IPsec)
>> tunnels, it could be re-used for this purpose outside of ESP as well.
>
> I think that I was mis-interpreted.
> I wasn't saying that this protocol would get used outside of ESP.
> I'm saying that this protocol (with ESP) will solve the PMTU problem, and so
> make IPsec more popular.
Right, sorry, I put your meaning in parens "(Ipsec)", and I probably shouldn't
have been trying to also point out, in the same overloaded sentence, that this
same logic would apply to any IP-in-IP tunnel context as well. :)
Thanks,
Chris.
> Maybe that also means that being able to use it with transport mode could be
> interesting, but I think that BEET mode is more likely.
>
> I think that having a proper IP protocol number will simplify kernel
> implementations.
>
> --
> ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
> ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails
> [
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
