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

Re: IPSec Complexity

To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: Re: IPSec Complexity
From: Skye Poier <skye@ffwd.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:38:32 -0800
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.1000218190434.1833A-100000@spsystems.net>; from henry@spsystems.net on Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 07:07:02PM -0500
References: <200002181900.LAA20369@potassium.network-alchemy.com> <Pine.BSI.3.91.1000218190434.1833A-100000@spsystems.net>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

Word on the street is that Henry Spencer said:
> Have we ever seen the vaguely-alluded-to explanation of why getting rid of
> *transport* mode, and just doing everything with tunnel mode, would be a
> horrible error?  (Aside from the question of whether it is practical to
> delete a mode this late in the game, which is a different can of worms.)

That's what my original question that started the thread was...  other than
a few extra bytes per packet, I can't really see any downside.

Skye

References:

Re: IPSec Complexity

From: Dan Harkins <dharkins@network-alchemy.com>

Re: IPSec Complexity

From: Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net>

Prev by Date: IPSP WG solutions are too complex
Next by Date: Re: IPSec Complexity
Prev by thread: Re: IPSec Complexity
Next by thread: Re: IPSec Complexity
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread