[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: transport-friendly ESP
- To: deering@cisco.com (Steve Deering)
- Subject: Re: transport-friendly ESP
- From: Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:14:25 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: smb@research.att.com, ipsec@tis.com, end2end-interest@isi.edu, tsv@ee.lbl.gov, diff-serv@BayNetworks.COM, ecn-interest@research.att.com, red-impl@lbl.gov, jis@MIT.EDU, mleech@nortel.ca
- In-Reply-To: <v03110701b2d5a98d9791@[171.69.116.90]> from "Steve Deering" at Jan 27, 99 09:56:03 pm
- Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
> Gee, Steve, you oughta have a job in marketing. "Transport-friendly ESP"
> sounds great, compared to, say, "layer-violation-abetting ESP". Regular
> ol' ESP is plenty friendly to the transport layer, just not to those who
> want to snoop on or muck with the transport layer's headers in transit.
>
> Steve
although the above might not sound very "Steve-friendly":-), I somehow
share the concern with opening up transport fields.
So rather than taking the necessity as given (which I know has been
stated/discussed many times), could some more informed parties help briefly
re-iterate the needs for making ESP *more* transport-friendliness (than
what it is now)?
I remember hearing some sound reasons at the last TSV meeting but can't
recall them all. If we see the list of reasons, then either Mr. Deering
could be convinced, or maybe the list of reasons indeed deserves a
revisit.
Lixia
Follow-Ups:
References: