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

Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)

To: "C. Harald Koch" <chk@utcc.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
From: "Angelos D. Keromytis" <angelos@aurora.cis.upenn.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:00:56 +0000
Cc: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@apollo.hp.com>, ipsec@tis.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:10:33 EST." <97Feb19.141142est.11653@elgreco.rnd.border.com>
Posted-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:00:56 +0000
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


In message <97Feb19.141142est.11653@elgreco.rnd.border.com>, "C. Harald Koch" w
rites:
>
>Yes, but isn't that a Hard Problem (tm) unless you keep state (either
>"virtual interfaces" or individual packets) at the tunnel endpoints? How
>else do you convert an ICMP Fragmentation Required message for a tunneled
>(and auth'd and 'crypted) packet back into an ICMP Fragmentation Required
>for the original, untunnelled packet?

Check the archives for a discussion on this about 2 weeks ago.
I don't think this is a hard problem.
- -Angelos

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMwtb970pBjh2h1kFAQHougQAhRiBb2pCqrE1SRIt9PNvtQM+kc2QPzDZ
g6+GG6DSZQpwhC2LYN54r17yPo0L26dpk+ZXmNrbLY9xcmQADZyatbXdgJGp3YOX
2wGSvFdd/4dOMqCzFr+SDvKduBThQC/CUXDDJM7EOKVgB4O/8zxwJNfQ+i1k0nSy
VXdh98vYysg=
=41Nw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

References:

Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)

From: "C. Harald Koch" <chk@utcc.utoronto.ca>

Prev by Date: Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
Next by Date: Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
Prev by thread: Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
Next by thread: Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread