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

Re: IPSEC and NAT

To: rgm3@chrysler.com
Subject: Re: IPSEC and NAT
From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 07:04:15 -0400
Cc: ipsec@tis.com
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970827063725.0331e780@pop3hub.is.chrysler.com>
References: <199708260006.UAA21135@dcl.MIT.EDU><Bill Sommerfeld's message of Fri, 22 Aug 1997 17:13:25 -0400,<199708222113.RAA00438@thunk.ch.apollo.hp.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

At 06:37 AM 8/27/97 -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:

>
>Who is ready to tackle IPsec and Class of service???????
>

Shouldn't be a problem, since IPsec doesn't munge the IP Precedence
bits. If you haven't been following the discussion over in intserv,
and missed the intserv differentiated service meeting in Munich, this
has been an ongoing discussion on how to provide differing levels of
service -- something 'looser' than RSVP and state maintenance. There
is strong consensus that a 'drop preference' can be implemented using
something like the IP Precedence bits in conjunction with a weighted
congestion avoidance mechanism in the network core, so that when
congestion does occur in the network, you basically get differing
levels of best effort -- someone's traffic will get dropped before
someone else's.

Outside of the scope of IPSec, I know, but you asked.  :-)

- paul

Follow-Ups:

Re: IPSEC and NAT

From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm3@chrysler.com>

References:

Re: IPSEC and NAT

From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>

Re: IPSEC and NAT

From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm3@chrysler.com>

Prev by Date: Re: IPSEC and NAT
Next by Date: Ottawa IPsec Interoperablity Meeting - Sept 22nd
Prev by thread: Re: IPSEC and NAT
Next by thread: Re: IPSEC and NAT
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread