For Moonv6 testing we had 6 production implementations of IPsec with IPv6. Speculation is in early 2005 we will have 11-15. So it has been implemented for that question and with production code. But how painful is it to add this to the ICV? The issue is at the virtual IP layer and then in the SA database and of course the actual ICV. If implementors had to do it then we would need to be able to identify Ipsec with and without for that in process.
/jim > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 2:00 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: AH and flow label > > > Right. My question was an attempt to see how many implementations > > support IPSec AH today. > > We have one that supports IPsec AH for IPv6 and I am pretty > sure that there are many more :) > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
