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

Re: IBM VPN Bakeoff Issues

To: Stephen Waters <Stephen.Waters@digital.com>
Subject: Re: IBM VPN Bakeoff Issues
From: "Scott G. Kelly" <skelly@redcreek.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 16:16:21 -0800
CC: Richard Draves <richdr@microsoft.com>, ipsec@tis.com
Organization: RedCreek Communications
References: <250F9C8DEB9ED011A14D08002BE4F64C02155FC9@wade.reo.dec.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

Stephen Waters wrote:
> I think the discussion is going along the line that, if the protocols
> headers are adjacent,
> they are the same mode and should be declared as such in the proposal.
> 

If the discussion is really going along this line, then it has gone
wrong. AH transport wrapped around an ESP tunnel looks like this:

[IP2][AH][ESP][IP1][DATA][TLR]

Clearly, the AH and ESP headers are adjacent, yet the modes are
different, and should be declared as such in the proposal.

Follow-Ups:

Re: IBM VPN Bakeoff Issues

From: Daniel Harkins <dharkins@cisco.com>

References:

RE: IBM VPN Bakeoff Issues

From: Stephen Waters <Stephen.Waters@digital.com>

Prev by Date: Re: IBM VPN Bakeoff Issues
Next by Date: Re: IBM VPN Bakeoff Issues
Prev by thread: RE: IBM VPN Bakeoff Issues
Next by thread: Re: IBM VPN Bakeoff Issues
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread