RE: IPsec & Markers

I'm not sure what more you want to do with markers than you can already
do.  It is legal for endpoints to specify "Don't transmit Markers to me"
(See 'M' bit in MPA connection setup).  If your endpoint is certain it
can always decode FPDUs without markers, then set this bit to zero.  The
other end is still free to ask for markers for FPDUs going to it, of
course.

Of course you must still be prepared for potential alignment breaks,
even if you are doing IPSEC, since there is no requirement that senders
always align or pack perfectly into segments.  And you will always have
to process FPDUs in order (to use the length field check) to safely
identify the FPDU boundaries.  Note that the group agreed that CRC
checks were NOT sufficient for FPDU boundary identification.

If you were thinking of adding some kind of requirement that when doing
IPSEC, senders MUST perfectly align and segment one FPDU to TCP segment,
I think that would be a very difficult battle in the IETF.

Paul R. Culley
HP Fellow
281-514-5543
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
> Behalf Of Michael C. Cambria
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 9:51 PM
> To: Krause, Michael R
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [rddp] IPsec & Markers
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Krause wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I hate to bring this up but from a process perspective, did we not 
> > already achieve consensus that markers would always be 
> required?  We 
> > are getting towards last call so it would be good to avoid 
> re-opening 
> > a topic if it has already reached consensus.
> 
> The WG only agreed to make IPsec mandatory to implement in 
> San Diego (2 months ago).  I never suggested anything other 
> than being able to do for markers what one can do for CRC 
> when running over IPsec.
> 
> MikeC
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rddp mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp
>