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

Re[4]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway

To: "Whelan, Bill" <bwhelan@nei.com>
Subject: Re[4]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway
From: Karl Fox <karl@ascend.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 15:21:40 -0800
Cc: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@apollo.hp.com>, kent@bbn.com, ho@earth.hpc.org, ipsec@tis.com
In-Reply-To: <9611028495.AA849576552@netx.nei.com>
Organization: Ascend Communications
References: <9611028495.AA849576552@netx.nei.com>
Reply-To: Karl Fox <karl@ascend.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

Bill Whelan writes:
> >Hmm.  Which "protocol tower" are we talking about, anyhow?
> 
> > IP[H1->H2],AH[R1->R2],...
> 
> >or
> 
> > IP[R1->R2],AH[R1->R2],IP[H1->H2],...
> 
> >(R1,R2 are routers, H1,H2 are hosts; the problem is only interesting
> >if we assume H2 != R2).
...
> Unless I'm really confused, the latter case is not even provided for in the 
> specifications...

I certainly hope the latter case is legal, because it's used by quite
a number of encrypting firewalls.
-- 
Karl Fox, servant of God, employee of Ascend Communications
3518 Riverside Drive, Suite 101, Columbus, Ohio 43221   +1 614 326 6841

References:

Re[4]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway

From: "Whelan, Bill" <bwhelan@nei.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Re[4]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway
Next by Date: Re[5]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway
Prev by thread: Re: Re[4]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway
Next by thread: Re[5]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread