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

Re: proposed changes to ISAKMP/Oakley

To: rja@inet.org (Ran Atkinson)
Subject: Re: proposed changes to ISAKMP/Oakley
From: Tim Bass (IETF) <ietf@linux.silkroad.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 08:11:35 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: chk@utcc.utoronto.ca, ipsec@tis.com
In-Reply-To: <Chameleon.877498424.rja@c8-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com> from "Ran Atkinson" at Oct 22, 97 06:22:08 am
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

> > Even ID_IPV4_ADDR_SUBNET is only a slight improvement for sites with large
> > numbers of networks behind their security gateways.
> 
> Thanks to the wonders of CIDR, things generally aren't as bad as you imply.

The historical IETF RFCs were quite clear that CIDR should not be viewed
as a long term solution for routing scalability issues.   So, if we are
going to use 'long standing tradition' as a basis for design requirements
(as we are reading in this thread) then CIDR should not be mentally
coupled or technically coupled with IPSEC.

-Tim

References:

Re: proposed changes to ISAKMP/Oakley

From: Ran Atkinson <rja@inet.org>

Prev by Date: Re: proposed changes to ISAKMP/Oakley
Next by Date: Re: Proxy & ISAKMP/Oakley
Prev by thread: Re: proposed changes to ISAKMP/Oakley
Next by thread: Re: proposed changes to ISAKMP/Oakley
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread