[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
mail list problem?
------- Forwarded Message
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 1:15:01 EST
From: BBN Mail System (MMDF) <mmdf@BBN>
Sender: mmdf@BBN
Subject: Failed mail (msg.aa19746)
To: kent@bbn.com
After 4 days (75 hours), your message could not be
fully delivered.
It failed to be received by the following address(es):
ipsec@ans.net (host: ans.net) (queue: smtp)
Problems usually are due to service interruptions at the receiving
machine. Less often, they are caused by the communication system.
Your message follows:
To: dee@skidrow.ljo.dec.com
cc: ipsec@ans.net
Subject: Re: FWD: Re: Encapsulation vs options
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 10 Dec 92 12:17:09 -0500.
<9212101717.AA20948@skidrow.ljo.dec.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 22:00:01 -0500
From: Steve Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Donald,
In situations where a network layer security protocol is
provided at routers, the common model is that it is provided at ALL
the routers to a campus net or LAN. Thus there is not a problem of
directing traffic to the 1 router in three which has the crypto.
The fragmentation problems are well addressed with an
encapsulation protocol, but not by just an IP option. I expect that a
combination of the two, IP encapsulation plus an option, could achieve
the same effect. The other concern about IP options is the one mentioned
previously, i.e., there isn't much room available for options and this
might be very constraining on the protocol.
Steve
------- End of Forwarded Message