[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: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 14:18:04 -0400
Cc: ipsec@tis.com
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970828110131.00aca630@dilbert.is.chrysler.com>
References: <3.0.3.32.19970827070415.007d75f0@lint.cisco.com><3.0.3.32.19970827063725.0331e780@pop3hub.is.chrysler.com><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 11:01 AM 8/28/97 -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:

>At 07:04 AM 8/27/97 -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>
>Actually, I was one of the proposers of using the precedence bits at
>Memphis; and I am sure that it came up before.  However, you can't do
>enough with 3 bits, IMHO.  This might be the greatest driver to IPv6, or at
>least IPv4 in secure IPv6 tunnels!  IPv6 with things like Flow ID should
>have enough exposed fields to to class of service. 
>
>BTW, how is this for a totally backward view of IPngtran?
>

Bob,

Empirical evidence indicates that service providers do not want, nor need,
more than eight levels of differentiation. In fact, most of them simply
want two, at least initially (traditional best-effort and 'premium').

- paul

References:

Re: IPSEC and NAT

From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso@cisco.com>

Re: IPSEC and NAT

From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm3@chrysler.com>

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: Is tunnel IP address included in SA?
Next by Date: Re: A few observations about the replay issue
Prev by thread: Re: IPSEC and NAT
Next by thread: Re: IPSEC and NAT
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread