Re: Death to AH? (was: Reasons for AH & ESP )

[Michael Thomas <mat@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mohan Parthasarathy writes:
 > Mobile IPv6 has introduced new IPv6 destination options which requires
 > the use of AH. Section 4.4 of draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-12.txt
 > explains the IPsec requirements. (June 8th is the deadline for
 > any comments. It is to become a proposed standard). It specifically
 > says ESP can't be used.

   Is there any particular reason why the binding cache
   update messages in the destination options cannot
   follow rather than precede an ESP header? It doesn't
   look to me like there is any reason to keep destination
   options in the clear, in which case ESP would work
   fine.

		Mike