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

Re: transport-friendly ESP

To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: transport-friendly ESP
From: Alex Alten <Alten@home.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 19:44:27 -0800
Cc: Steve Bellovin <smb@research.att.com>, ipsec@tis.com, jis@MIT.EDU, mleech@nortel.ca, tf-esp@research.att.com
In-Reply-To: <v0401170cb2d7d08a8fd5@[128.33.238.173]>
References: <3.0.3.32.19990127200721.00b553e0@mail><199901280234.VAA03373@smb.research.att.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

Steve K.,

As a technology spreads it starts to be used in ways that may
not have been intended by the original designers.  Possibly IPSEC
is better suited for per hop protection within a security system
which maintains and enforces intermediate node trustworthiness.

- Alex

P.S. I reduced the cross posts to ipsec, tf-esp and some individuals.
     Good luck Steve B. with reconciling IPSEC and transport needs.

At 03:55 PM 1/29/99 -0500, Stephen Kent wrote:
>Alex,
>
>The purpose of IPsec is to offer end-to-end protection, so applying IPsec
>on a per-hop basis is feasible, but findamentally counter to the underlying
>motivation for these protocols, since the begining of this work (too) many
>years ago.
>
>Steve
>
--

Alex Alten

Alten@Home.Com
Alten@TriStrata.Com

P.O. Box 11406
Pleasanton, CA  94588  USA
(925) 417-0159

References:

Re: transport-friendly ESP

From: Alex Alten <Alten@home.com>

transport-friendly ESP

From: Steve Bellovin <smb@research.att.com>

Re: transport-friendly ESP

From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>

Prev by Date: Re: transport-friendly ESP
Next by Date: Re: New IPSec Monitoring MIB draft
Prev by thread: Re: transport-friendly ESP
Next by thread: Re: transport-friendly ESP
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread