[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: New MIB Drafts Submitted
>>>>> "Waters," == Waters, Stephen <Stephen.Waters@cabletron.com> writes:
Waters,> I'm not sure I would use the words 'very natural' when
Waters,> describing the negotiation of IPCOMP in IKE, and I would
Waters,> suggest that IKE was not the right wheel to use in the first
Waters,> place, so perhaps invention was required, not reinvention.
Perhaps if you were starting with a clean slate, IKE would not have
been the place to put IPCOMP. Then again, a major reason for having
IPCOMP is to cope with the loss of link-level compression that result
when you start encrypting above there.
Meanwhile, we do have IPCOMP negotiation in IKE, and it works fine
(modulo a detail or two that people have noticed and the new draft is
working to clear up).
So what are you proposing? To create another protocol to do what IKE
already does? Or to take it out of IKE and put it elsewhere? Or was
it just an observation with no protocol change intended?
paul
References: