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

Re: PPP over IPSec (Re: Windows 2000 and Cicsco router interoperability)

To: "CHINNA N.R. PELLACURU" <pcn@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: PPP over IPSec (Re: Windows 2000 and Cicsco router interoperability)
From: "Scott G. Kelly" <skelly@redcreek.com>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:03:35 -0700
CC: Jan Vilhuber <vilhuber@cisco.com>, "W. Mark Townsley" <townsley@cisco.com>, Ari Huttunen <Ari.Huttunen@F-Secure.com>, Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Organization: RedCreek Communications
References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10005171839080.3402-100000@zipper.cisco.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

Hi Chinna,

"CHINNA N.R. PELLACURU" wrote:
> 
> I had brought this up before: Isn't securing EAP within an IKE exchange,
> considered to be an overhead?
> 
>     chinna

I don't want to go off on this tangent right now, as it was incidental
to the discussion, but I will point out 2 things: first, the proposal
was not to secure the eap within an ike exchange. Second, I don't think
we can avoid adding overhead if we add functionality, but I think we
should strive to minimize that added overhead.

Scott

References:

Re: PPP over IPSec (Re: Windows 2000 and Cicsco router interoperability)

From: "CHINNA N.R. PELLACURU" <pcn@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: RE: Windows 2000 and Cicsco router interoperability
Next by Date: Re: PPP over IPSec (Re: Windows 2000 and Cicsco router interoperability)
Prev by thread: Re: PPP over IPSec (Re: Windows 2000 and Cicsco router interoperability)
Next by thread: Re: PPP over IPSec (Re: Windows 2000 and Cicsco router interoperability)
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread