![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
I would support the concern that Greg raised. There is an increased use of finer-grained traffic classification, in which port numbers play a role. It is true that, for maximum security, this information may want to be hidden. Greg recognized that in his suggestion that the port number copy in the security header could be supplied as all zero. If the port number is concealed (either with IPSec as it is currently defined, or with zeroed port numbers in Greg's suggestion) then a traffic classifier would have no port information and would have to classify all that traffic as "other" or "unknown application". This may be acceptable in many cases. By creating an *option* of supplying port information to the classifier, it allows a user to give up a small amount of security and gain the benefit of being classified into a different traffic category that has different (presumably better) service. I believe this is a valuable option. Paul Koning Xedia Corporation
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.