ULE Extension Header Thoughts

[Hilmar Linder <hlinder@cosy.sbg.ac.at>]

when thinking about the extension headers for ULE we left several 
questions untouched in the first draft. Therefore, I would like the list 
to comment on the following items:

o) Should we define the chaining mechanism: All mandatory extension 
headers MUST/SHOULD be inserted by the encapsulator prior to any 
extension headers in order to optimize receiver processing. A receiver 
is such able to discard a SNDU whose mandatory extension header is not 
supported or is to be rejected without having to investigate and 
eventually process optional extension headers beforehand.
o) Does it make sense to define the header types 0x002 and 0x003 as 
mandatory encryption header (section 2.1). As different encryptions 
require different extension headers we should probably only define that
the next-layer-header types should be larger than 0x001 and smaller than
0x0100.
o) How many different encryption schemes do we expect to support with 
the ULE extension headers? Is the type range allocated suffciently large?
o) Will we see different odd/even encryption header types for IPv4 and 
IPv6 traffic?

Any other thoughts?

-Hilmar Linder
(co-editor)


-------------- ipdvb list -------------------
To unsubscribe from the ipdvb list :-
Email majordomo@erg.abdn.ac.uk with the words
unsubscribe ipdvb
in the body of the message.
http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/ipdvb/
---------------------------------------------