Re: Outbound interface as a selector?

["Angelos D. Keromytis" <angelos@dsl.cis.upenn.edu>]

In message <199910172118.OAA14917@kebe.Eng.Sun.COM>, Dan McDonald writes:
>
>Off the top of your heads, do you see anything really broken about the idea
>of outbound interface as a selector?

No; in fact, it's also necessary if you are going to do link encryption at the
network layer (your example seemed a special case of this). I believe the
architecture RFC does not prohibit this.

The only negative side-effect is that, depending on the implementation
specifics, you may end up doing one routing-table lookup more than you need;
considering the cost of doing crypto, this is rather negligible.
-Angelos

---

References:

• Outbound interface as a selector?
• From: Dan McDonald <danmcd@Eng.Sun.Com>

---

• Prev by Date: Outbound interface as a selector?
• Next by Date: Re: Outbound interface as a selector?
• Prev by thread: Outbound interface as a selector?
• Next by thread: Re: Outbound interface as a selector?
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread