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

Re: charter question re IKE changes

To: "Chinna N.R. Pellacuru" <pcn@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: charter question re IKE changes
From: "Angelos D. Keromytis" <angelos@dsl.cis.upenn.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:27:53 -0400
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr@research.solidum.com>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 16 Oct 2000 21:49:22 PDT." <Pine.GSO.4.10.10010162139050.16768-100000@zipper.cisco.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

In message <Pine.GSO.4.10.10010162139050.16768-100000@zipper.cisco.com>, "Chinn
a N.R. Pellacuru" writes:
>Traffic can be sent in the clear "with *less* hassle" then trying to
>secure it.

It's even easier not to send any traffic. The point is, we want (for whatever
reason) to send traffic securely. A certificate-based configuration is in fact
easier (at least on the free IPsec implementations -- OpenBSD, Linux, KAME)
than pre-shared keys.

The commercial vendors should get their act together.
-Angelos

Follow-Ups:

Re: charter question re IKE changes

From: "Chinna N.R. Pellacuru" <pcn@cisco.com>

References:

Re: charter question re IKE changes

From: "Chinna N.R. Pellacuru" <pcn@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: XAuth
Next by Date: Re: charter question re IKE changes
Prev by thread: Re: charter question re IKE changes
Next by thread: Re: charter question re IKE changes
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread