[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: transport-friendly ESP
- To: Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
- Subject: Re: transport-friendly ESP
- From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
- Date: 29 Jan 1999 15:26:37 -0500
- Cc: deering@cisco.com (Steve Deering), 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: Lixia Zhang's message of "Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:14:25 -0800 (PST)"
- References: <199901280614.WAA17897@aurora.cs.ucla.edu>
- Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
- Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Lixia Zhang <lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU> writes:
> > 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.
>
> although the above might not sound very "Steve-friendly":-), I somehow
> share the concern with opening up transport fields.
As do I, even though I'm generally a fan of Steve's.
Perry
References: