Subject: RE: [Ipsec] Re: [Fwd: Review of draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2401bis-05.txt [Re: New batch of Last Call Documents]]

From: "Vishwas Manral" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:31:40 -0800

Hi Steve,

I agree to the text you propose.

Thanks,
Vishwas

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Kent [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 1:23 AM
To: Vishwas Manral
Cc: [email-masked]; Brian E Carpenter
Subject: RE: [Ipsec] Re: [Fwd: Review of
draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2401bis-05.txt [Re: New batch of Last Call
Documents]]

At 8:02 PM -0800 12/28/04, Vishwas Manral wrote:
>Hi Steve,
>
>As you said "such behavior by intermediate routers would tend to cause
>havoc with the traffic anyway, so I would hope that this would not be a
>common occurrence".
>
>Would we however want to put a comment regarding the same? The text to
>add could be "Changing DSCP values en-route can result in different
>class of packets on the same SA and SHOULD be avoided."
>
>Sorry for the confusion caused.
>
>Thanks,
>Vishwas

We could add an advisory statement that warns folks, e.g.,

"If significant reordering of packets occurs in an SA, e.g, as a 
result of changes to DSCP values en route, this may trigger packet 
discarding by a receiver due to application of the anti-replay 
mechanism."

Steve

_______________________________________________
Ipsec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec