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

Re[6]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?

To: "Shriver, John" <john.shriver@intel.com>
Subject: Re[6]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?
From: Jim Tiller <tiller_j@ins.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:26:35 -0400
CC: "'Ari Huttunen'" <Ari.Huttunen@datafellows.com>, ietf-ipsra@vpnc.org, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-reply-To: <392A357CE6FFD111AC3E00A0C99848B001D6A3DB@hdsmsx31.hd.intel.com>
Organization: INS
References: <392A357CE6FFD111AC3E00A0C99848B001D6A3DB@hdsmsx31.hd.intel.com>
Reply-To: Jim Tiller <tiller_j@ins.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com


Shriver> No.  The IP and UDP layers under L2TP don't do any correction of re-ordered
Shriver> packets.  That is not part of the service contracto or IP or UDP, only of
Shriver> TCP, which isn't involved.

Ohh. That burns:-) I COMPLETELY got twisted up. Thank you
for straightening me out!

Shriver> It also made it easier for Microsoft to integrate IPSec/VPN functionality
Shriver> into Windows 2000.  The IPSec community gains by having such a widely
Shriver> available IPSec implementation.

Agreed.

Thankx for your help!

-jim

References:

RE: Re[4]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?

From: "Shriver, John" <john.shriver@intel.com>

Prev by Date: RE: Re[4]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?
Next by Date: RE: Racing QM Initiator's
Prev by thread: RE: Re[4]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?
Next by thread: IKE reference implementations
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread