[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Windows 2000 and Cicsco (sic) router interoperability
So, you have communicated to the PPPEXT WG that PPP is worthless
without detailed specification of the filtering behavior of a PPP
device? I truly do not understand why L2TP is the single target
of your scorn.
It is my strong impression, from years of reading RFCs and drafts,
that the primary concern is bits on the wire, with internal operation
specified only when it is required to ensure interoperability.
Yes, a PPP/L2TP device should not forget what it knows about where
a packet came from when deciding what filter rules to apply, just
as an IPsec gateway should not echo decrypted packets out to random
addresses, and guns should not be fired at one's feet. Duh.
Barney
> Stephen Kent wrote:
> >
> > At 12:10 PM -0400 5/17/00, Barney Wolff wrote:
> > >As a non-Cisco, non-MS L2TP developer, let me say that benign neglect
> > >of L2TP by the IPsec group would be a welcome advance. What we've
> > >seen has been active disparagement by certain IPsec'ers, apparently
> > >based on assumptions that do not match how anybody's L2TP or PPP
> > >implementations really work.
> >
> > As one of the folks you to whom you are undoubtedly referring, let me
> > just note that the IETF creates standards and we evaluate the merits
> > of WG efforts based on what the standards documents say, not by what
> > vendors may choose to implement irrespective of the standards.
> >
> > steve
>
Follow-Ups: