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

Re: (IPng) Proposed Standard or no?

To: perry@imsi.com
Subject: Re: (IPng) Proposed Standard or no?
From: markson@osmosys.incog.com (Tom Markson)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 15:14:13 -0800 (PST)
Cc: ashar@osmosys.incog.com, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ipsec@ans.net
In-Reply-To: <9502272104.AA07901@snark.imsi.com> from "Perry E. Metzger" at Feb 27, 95 04:04:14 pm

>[Perry Metzger writes:]
> I'm not aware that we are precluding any viable option -- including a
> slightly modified SKIP. What we are precluding is pre-assigned SAIDs
> and all the kernel muck that would be associated with processing them.

I don't understand this argument.  If the host implements in-band
key management, then it will use the "structured" bit in the SAID.  If it
doesn't, it can safely ignore it.  I don't understand how this will create
muck in the kernel.  

--tom

Follow-Ups:

Re: (IPng) Proposed Standard or no?

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>

References:

Re: (IPng) Proposed Standard or no?

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>

Prev by Date: Re: (IPng) out-of-band key management is like virtual circuits
Next by Date: Re: (IPng) Re: out-of-band key management is like virtual circuits
Prev by thread: Re: (IPng) Proposed Standard or no?
Next by thread: Re: (IPng) Proposed Standard or no?
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread