On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 9:50 PM Michael Richardson
wrote:
>
> Ben Schwartz wrote:
> >> Ben Schwartz wrote:
> >>
> >
>
> >> > The real motivation to support AH in this draft comes down to MTU
> >> > overhead. Going from 24 bytes of MTU loss to 73 bytes seems
> >> >
Hello ipsecme,
We would like to notify the list that we just published a new draft
(ieft-draft-pponchon-ipsecme-anti-replay-subspaces) and would kindly ask for
the opportunity to present it in London in person.
We (the authors of this draft) are currently involved in the performance
optimizati
Ben Schwartz wrote:
>> Ben Schwartz wrote:
>> >> Ben Schwartz wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> >> > The real motivation to support AH in this draft comes down to MTU
>> >> > overhead. Going from 24 bytes of MTU loss to 73 bytes seems
>> >> > potentially significant,
Hi all,
We are looking at establishing SAs for specific DSCP values. I am wondering
if the specification of specific TSi/r is the right way to do this or if
that issue has already been solved.
Yours,
Daniel
--
Daniel Migault
Ericsson
___
IPsec mailing
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 2:26 PM Michael Richardson
wrote:
>
> Ben Schwartz wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> Even assuming that you can insert an AH header (which I think you
> can
> >> legally
> >> do in IPv4, but not in IPv6), then you have to use a SPI# allocated
> by
> >> destination AS
