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

Re: IPSECond

To: Shawn_Mamros@BayNetworks.COM (Shawn Mamros)
Subject: Re: IPSECond
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 11:19:46 -0500
cc: DEWAYNE STONE <Stone.Dewayne@bei.bls.com>, ipsec@tis.com
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

In message <3.0.32.19981118110357.009bf100@bl-mail1.corpeast.baynetworks.com>, 
Shawn Mamros writes:
>>     How do IPSECond and IPSec compare?  Are they the same or is IPSECond 
>>     intended to run parallel with IPSec?
>
>"IPSecond" is a word that was coined as a catch-all for the follow-on
>work that the IPSEC working group is now taking on.  Despite what some
>misinformed folks (or folks who seek to deliberately mislead others)
>say, it is *NOT* a "complete rewrite" of IPSEC.  All of the "IPSecond"
>work is based on IPSEC (and IKE) as its core.

Violent agreement -- and I'm the person who made up that word.  I'll state
categorically that to my knowledge, at this time at most small changes are
needed to IKE.  I know of no changes needed to ESP, AH, or the architecture.

Prev by Date: Re: IPSECond
Next by Date: Re: FW: IPSec Monitoring MIB works for IPv4 only?
Prev by thread: Re: IPSECond
Next by thread: more on ipsec-mib-02 - Phase 1 tunnels
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread