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

Re: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?

To: Jim Tiller <tiller_j@ins.com>
Subject: Re: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?
From: "Scott G. Kelly" <skelly@redcreek.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 14:06:48 -0700
CC: Ari Huttunen <Ari.Huttunen@datafellows.com>, ietf-ipsra@vpnc.org, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Organization: RedCreek Communications
References: <38060149.F2DCC128@redcreek.com> <15640.991014@ins.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

Jim Tiller wrote:
> 
> Hello Scott,
> 
> Thursday, October 14, 1999, 12:14:01 PM, you wrote:
> 
> Kelly> This dances around a bigger problem which keeps recurring in different
> Kelly> guises on this list: vpn and ipsec are not synonymous.
>  I just had an extensive discussion with several associates
>  about the interchange of the acronyms IPSec and VPN. VPN
>  can be all encompassing where IPSec is specific.
>  I guess my question to you, et al, is why do vendors attempt
>  to "hack" L2TP and IPSec together and not augment L2TP with
>  encryption, releasing IPSec from acting as a crutch?

I'll have to leave this one to the L2TP experts here.  However, I will
note that vendors attempt to fill customer needs quickly, and sometimes
this motivates vendors to find a quick way (not necessarily the best
way, mind you) to make things work.

Scott

References:

Re: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?

From: "Scott G. Kelly" <skelly@redcreek.com>

Re[2]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?

From: Jim Tiller <tiller_j@ins.com>

Prev by Date: RE: Racing QM Initiator's
Next by Date: Re: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?
Prev by thread: Re[2]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?
Next by thread: Re: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread