30 likes | 150 Views
draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis-00.txt. Rajeev Koodli. Update. Few editorial changes based on the input on ML Include a new option in FBU 0 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
E N D
draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis-00.txt Rajeev Koodli
Update • Few editorial changes based on the input on ML • Include a new option in FBU 0 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | HKE | AT | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SPI | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AUTH Data .... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Issues.. • Why not use the option in RFC 4285? • Why do we need HKE and AT in FBU/FBack? • Why SPI = 0 needed? • Resolution: • Remove HKE field? • If SPI is set to zero, the HKE is SEND-based • If a new HKE is to be defined, relies on reserving an SPI value. Good idea? • Remove AT field? • Yes, AT is set by the key derivation mechanism (AAA, SEND)