Re: Issue 59 (was: protocol draft status and moving forward)
<[email protected]> Sun, 6 Nov 2005 19:13:53 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mobike |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Tero Kivinen wrote:
> Yes. People WILL misunderstand any text you put there.
>
> If you do not want to add the text twice, then add the picture, not
> the text. Text is hard to parse when you are trying to implement
> things, and then you end up interpreting every hidden meaning before
> each word used.
Ok, how about this?
The Notify Message Type for this message is TBD-BY-IANA8. The
notification data contains the IP addresses and ports from/to which
the packet was sent. For IPv4, the notification data is 12 octets
long and is defined as follows:
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Source IPv4 address !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Destination IPv4 address !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Source port ! Destination port !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
For IPv6, the notification data is 36 octets long and is defined as
follows:
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
! Source IPv6 address !
! !
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
! Destination IPv6 address !
! !
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! Source port ! Destination port !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Protocol ID and SPI Size fields are set to zero.
(Note that I also re-arranged the fields: previously the order
was src ip, src port, dst ip, dst port -- this is the same
order they appear in the packet, and made the picture
look nicer :-)
> > Is mentioning IPv6 some more helpful for the reader..?
>
> Yes. I think it should be repeated also in the security considerations
> section, just to tell where this protection can be used.
Ok, I copied the "This feature is mainly intended for IPv6 and
site-to-site VPN cases, where the administrators may know
beforehand that NATs are not present." from 3.9 here.
Best regards,
Pasi