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

Re: Comments on ipsec-arch-sec-01.txt

To: rja@inet.org
Subject: Re: Comments on ipsec-arch-sec-01.txt
From: Jim Thompson <jim@hosaka.smallworks.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 09:23:30 -0500
CC: ipsec@tis.com
In-reply-to: <Chameleon.875016355.rja@c8-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com> (message fromRan Atkinson on Tue, 23 Sep 97 12:57:26 GMT Daylight Time)
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com


> > Yes, it is, but I've been asked to not rule out BITS implementations that
> > take extraodrinary measures to compensate.
> 
>   Perhaps its useful to note in more detail how much extraordinary effort is
>   required to get a BITS approach to work properly.  I suspect that most of
>   the BITS implementations won't go far enough to really make things work
>   properly.
> 
>   Personally, I don't believe that the BITS approach is necessary given that
>   various vendors have already shipped stacks for Windows that include IPsec
>   and Microsoft has IPsec code being written for its stacks.  The historic
>   justification for the BITS approach was Microsoft systems.

Microsoft, Sun, HP, ...

If you seek to eliminate BITS implementations, then you will likely
'lock-out' several IPSEC vendors.  (Anyone who doesn't have access to
the source for the IP portion of the stack.)

-- 
Jim Thompson / Smallworks, Inc. / jim@smallworks.com  
      512 338 0619 phone / 512 338 0625 fax
"Faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death."
	 --Hunter S. Thompson

References:

Re: Comments on ipsec-arch-sec-01.txt

From: Ran Atkinson <rja@inet.org>

Prev by Date: Re: Comments on ipsec-arch-sec-01.txt
Next by Date: [Fwd: Re: Comments on ipsec-arch-sec-01.txt]
Prev by thread: Re: Comments on ipsec-arch-sec-01.txt
Next by thread: Re: Comments on ipsec-arch-sec-01.txt
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread