[e2e] How TCP might look with always there ESP

[Robert Moskowitz]

At 12:57 PM 7/17/2001 -0400, Dan McDonald wrote:

> > Why do I ask, you ask?  Well I have been concentrating on good, end-2-end
> > ESP with a new Key Management Protocol called HIP.  And since I am already
> > recommending changes to the TCB API (use a hash of the Host Identity in
> > place of the IP address to decouple the internetwokring and transport
> > layers)
>
>Such a change is far more than an API change.  Doing that changes the TCP
>protocol, though perhaps not as drastically as your previous sequence number
>suggestion.

Then how do NATs get away with altering TCP checksums?  This is something 
that can well be handled in an end-2-end ESP implementation.  Even a 
gateway-2-gateway one, come to think of it.

> > and since I want this to be very wireless friendly, I am looking
> > at what I can do to 'compression' TCP's overhead.
>
>Is this another argument for TCPng discussions?

If you look at ESP as layer 3.5 and it is always there (or at least there 
enough to use it often), how WOULD layer 4 look?