Hi, > > Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> wrote: > The primary thing I'm suggesting here is that we define TFS transport mode in > a separate draft.
I agree that transport mode should be described in a separate draft provided that a tunnel mode draft will allow easy adding of transport mode. > Whether we support generic transport or only a subset of transport > configurations (e.g., tunnels) or both, the reasons we make whatever choices > we make, and the mechanisms for how to implement TFS with whatever is > chosen, is what this new draft would cover. I see this building on top of the TFS > tunnel mode draft. I think a generic transport mode should be supported. Any specific configuration (like GRE+transport) regardless of how widely it is used today, may become extinct tomorrow. Regards, Valery. > The rest of what I put above was really just ideas for what would go in that > new draft. My thinking that if we wanted to support a subset of transport > mode configurations (e.g., for use with GRE, SRv6, IP-IP, etc) we could specify > that by defining a set of restrictions on the user IP headers. I'm not sure if > that's what you mean is a hack or not, but I figured if we define it by the > restrictions rather than specifically only for GRE it's more broadly useful for > little extra cost. In any case the discussion of this and definition is what I think > would go well in the context of it's own draft. > > Thanks, > Chris. _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
