Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> wrote:
> During the last IETF (106) a discussion ensued on the allocation of the
IP protocol number for IPTFS payloads. I've looked at the options presented:
> 1) Use WESP (wrapped ESP)
> 2) Use protocol number zero, and depend on configuration.
> 3) Just allocate a number this is a valid use.
> I think we should continue with the allocation of the IP number. Here are
the reasons:
I concur.
....
> So, my suggestion is we continue with the protocol number. We could
> request an early allocation so that we can work on acceptance/education
> prior to WGLC/IESG submission. And, however unlikely, if we find we
> cant allocate a protocol number, we can fall-back to using
> zero+ike/config without a lot of additional work.
And I agree with having the WG ask for early allocation.
--
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
