Tero Kivinen <kivi...@iki.fi> wrote:
>> Tero Kivinen <kivi...@iki.fi> wrote: > I think we should use normal
>> ESP format i.e. have ESP SPI using > following format:
>>
>> I mostly agree. But:
>>
>> > (0-255 bytes) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> | |
>>
>> It would be nice to be able to put enough padding to make packets at
>> least 1280, ideally 2048 bytes in size.
>>
>> that would let us diagnose MTU issues better.
> That (0-255 bytes) is leftover from the figure I copied from the
> RFC4303, where it was part of the length of the padding field. In my
> case I did assume that payload can be of any length, so I agree on your
> fix...
I'm not sure how we put more than 255 bytes in :-)
I guess it doesn't really matter if we call it padding or not, so we can
really just do whatever.
I suppose it would be good to have a value at the beginning of the packet
(closer to what an ICMP PTB might successfully return upon failure) to say
how big the packet was.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
