Re: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to

["Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>]

"M.C.Nelson" writes:
> 
> On Fri, 27 Mar 1998, Scott G. Kelly wrote:
> > 
> > IPSEC as currently spec'd is SSSSEEEECCCCUUURRRREEE.
> 
>   Has this been established?  It seems doubtful in view of
>   (i) its complexity,

The basic protocol is highly simple. It encrypts and encapsulates a
packet. Lots of niggling details show up, like "what does this do to
the reported MTU of the link" and such, but I can explain IPSec's
essense to people in a couple of minutes with reasonably high detail.

>   and (ii) its explicit support for gateways and "trusted networks".

IPSec permits you to build VPNs. VPNs are naturally only as secure as
the end networks, but the IPSec tunnels themselves are almost
certainly going to be hard to break.

Perry

---

Follow-Ups:

• Re: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to
• From: "M.C.Nelson" <netsec@panix.com>

References:

• Re: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to
• From: "M.C.Nelson" <netsec@panix.com>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to
• Next by Date: Re: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to Proposed Standard
• Prev by thread: Re: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to
• Next by thread: Re: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread