Re: New GRE Draft Extensions

[Gopal Dommety <gdommety@cisco.com>]

At 01:54 PM 10/03/00 -0500, Frederick N. Chase wrote:
>Re:  Key and Sequence Number Extensions to GRE
>                    
>                    
>                    
>The proposed use of two previously-reserved header bits
>in  draft-dommety-gre-ext-00.txt 
>differ in a fundamental way.
>
>The proposed use of a reserved bit as a
>"Sequence Number Present" bit is a
>potentially-beneficial modifier
>on encapsulator/decapsulator behavior and therefore
>seems to me to be advisable or at least not inadvisable.
>
>The proposed use of a reserved bit as a
>"Key Present" bit does not affect (narrowly construed)
>encapsulator/decapsulator behavior but rather
>concerns the processor of the encapsulated or decapsulated 
>data.  This proposal seems to me to be inadvisable.
>
>Acceptance of the "Key Present" proposal unnecessarily 
>encumbers some other 
>processor of encapsulated or decapsulated data
>which might like to have an optional extra 32 bits for some purpose
>where the terms "Key and "sub-tunnel" would be 
>confusing and inappropriate.

Fred,

	I am not sure of the concern. Would appreciate if you could explain.
Is your concern that we have to maintain a  Sequence number per Key when both are present? Or that
earlier (in RFC1701) it was supposed to be  used by the receiver to authenticate
      the source of the packet?

Thanks
Gopal




>
>
>   -Fred Chase
> 
Thank You.
Regards,
Gopal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gopal Dommety
408 525 1404 
gdommety@cisco.com
Cisco Systems, San Jose, CA, 95051