[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Encapsulation vs options

To: teb@saturn.sys.acc.com (Tom Benkart), ipsec@ans.net
Subject: Re: Encapsulation vs options
From: atkinson@tengwar.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Randall Atkinson)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1992 09:29:25 EST
In-Reply-To: teb@saturn.sys.acc.com (Tom Benkart) "Encapsulation vs options" (Dec 4, 9:09am)

I don't think we need to view this as either/or.

  Clearly we need an encapsulating protocol that is derived from
something like NLSP/SP3.  That and suitable key mgmt is also clearly
the only priority item.

  However, if some of the mechanisms used there might also be used to
create a legitimate security option for IPv4, then why not look into
those on the side as a background item without priority.  A fair
number of folks that I respect say that no such option can be devised
for IPv4.  I wouldn't be surprised if the result was that nothing
ended up happening with an IPv4 option.  A look-see in the background
couldn't hurt though.

Ran
atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil


--

Prev by Date: What's in a name?
Next by Date: Re: Encapsulation vs options
Prev by thread: Re: Encapsulation vs options
Next by thread: RE: Encapsulation vs options
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread