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

Re: use of client IDs

To: Bryan Gleeson <BGleeson@shastanets.com>
Subject: Re: use of client IDs
From: "Scott G. Kelly" <skelly@redcreek.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 13:24:24 -0700
CC: Pyda Srisuresh <suresh@livingston.com>, ipsec@tis.com
Organization: RedCreek Communications
References: <EBE4A6EB7EB0D1118D1C00A0C98313321D8433@shasta-pc.shastanets.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

Bryan Gleeson wrote:
<trimmed...>
> 
> Actually I'm proposing that it should be optional, since to make it
> mandatory would preclude simple cases like "on interface X use
> security association Y for all traffic sent to destination Z".
> 

It *is* optional. We're right back where we started. If the ID payload
is not included, the appropriate ID for policy selection is, by
definition, that associated with the sender.

Follow-Ups:

Re: use of client IDs

From: "Scott G. Kelly" <skelly@redcreek.com>

References:

RE: use of client IDs

From: Bryan Gleeson <BGleeson@shastanets.com>

Prev by Date: RE: use of client IDs
Next by Date: Re: use of client IDs
Prev by thread: RE: use of client IDs
Next by thread: Re: use of client IDs
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread