[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: phase 2 and ports
Jan Vilhuber wrote:
> Here's the problem: Some protocols float ports (example l2tp, ftp, h.323, to
> name a few). Other protocols a priori use more than one port (can't think of
This is a real problem.
Maybe we could come up with an API or a protocol to enable applications
to control security services in the manner you propose.
>a) port-ranges would be usefull for applications that know a priori what
I remember in the last IETF Steven Bellovin gave a talk about a similar
problem for SCTP (one of the signaling protocols). There the problem was
with several IP addresses. If somebody's going to extend ID payloads,
such extensions should cover both issues.
> ports they are going to use. On a side note, it's always kind of bothered
> me that we need 2 ID payloads. I assume this is so we can reuse the ID
Isn't this because, say, L2TP client is has a wildcard port number and
the server a fixed one?
Jari
Follow-Ups:
References: