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

Re: Windows 2000 and Cicsco router interoperability

I guess, security doesn't come cheap, and every customer understands that.

If we want to massively hack the protocol, in the name of efficiency, (to
provide all the features that PPP already provides), then I guess there
will always be people who will come along and blame us saying "overly
complex systems are inherently insecure".

And, I don't think any company, cisco, micr*s*ft or any other company
would push a technology, because the company developed it. To me, that
just seems so wrong. :-) But then, I am just a software engineer working
in the trenches, and I see the world differently. :-)

    chinna

On Thu, 11 May 2000, CHINNA N.R. PELLACURU wrote:

> And one more benefit of using L2TP/IPSec is, it can support securing IP
> multicast traffic, atleast over the vpn link. But if you are using native
> IPSec with Mode-config/Xauth, you can't secure multicast traffic, and you
> will need to have atleast GRE to do this.
> 
> I wonder how much benefit we can get out of "L2TP Header Compression".
> 
> Regarding access control, some customers raised concerns that, if a client
> has a VPN link connected to the corporate intranet, and is also directly
> connected to the Internet, then they can't enforce the corporate firewall
> policy on that client, like they can if the client was actually in the
> intranet. There were also concerns raised that if the client is
> directly connected to the Internet, it could be hacked, and won't be able
> to have the same protection that the corporate firewall provides.
> 
> There are atleast two ways of dealing with this:
> 
> 1. put an equalent of the corporate firewall on the client so that it can
> defend itself, and also enforce the corporate firewall policy.
> 
> 2. have a very simple policy on the client that says all traffic will go
> via the VPN link to the corporate network, and the client will accept/send
> nothing else. This would be the true emulation of the Dial-in remote
> access, and this can be acheived naturally using L2TP.
> 
>     chinna
> 
> 
> On Thu, 11 May 2000, Stephen Kent wrote:
> 
> > At 2:54 PM -0700 5/10/00, CHINNA N.R. PELLACURU wrote:
> > >I can't speak for the whole of Cisco, but the way I look at it is:
> > >
> > >Modeconfig/Xauth are being supported as quick hack to get something to
> > >work, and get something to customers, until there is a client that can do
> > >IPSec and L2TP.
> > >
> > >I beleive that it is not our long term vision, to ship Modeconfig/Xauth. I
> > >beleive that Cisco's long term goal is to follow whatever is standardized
> > >in the IPSRA WG, because that's what IPSRA WG is chartered to solve.
> > >
> > 
> > That's one view.
> > 
> > Another perspective is that L2TP over IPsec represents an effort by 
> > Microsoft & Cisco to preserve a joint development investment in L2TP, 
> > irrespective of its technical merit in this context :-). If I am 
> > sending non-IP packets, L2TP is appropriate, but if I am sending IP, 
> > then the extra headers introduced by L2TP are not only wasteful of 
> > bandwidth on a continuing basis, but they also interfere with the 
> > access controls that are an essential part of IPsec. One needs some 
> > means of dealing with bind time connection parameters, but use of 
> > L2TP on a continuing basis is an expensive means of achieving this 
> > goal.
> > 
> > Steve
> > 
> > 
> 
> chinna narasimha reddy pellacuru
> s/w engineer
> 
> 

chinna narasimha reddy pellacuru
s/w engineer
References: