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

Re: RFC 2401 section 5.2.1

To: Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net>
Subject: Re: RFC 2401 section 5.2.1
From: itojun@iijlab.net
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:25:43 +0900
cc: Richard Draves <richdr@microsoft.com>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com, Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
In-reply-to: henry's message of Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:29:50 EST. <Pine.BSI.3.91.1001120142449.15481B-100000@spsystems.net>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com


>On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Richard Draves wrote:
>> a) Do you agree that Mobile IPv6's requirement that AH be used and not ESP
>> is too restrictive?
>Strongly agree.  We'd like to see AH die entirely, and hence are opposed
>to having any other standard demand its continued survival.

	(again this holy war on AH)
	I don't.  if you use transport mode IPsec heavily (unlike today's
	VPN-only situation) how can you protect your header portion?
	since the introduction of IPsec there are so many protocols that rely
	upon the use of IPsec to protect it.  I wonder what is their underlying
	security model.

itojun

Follow-Ups:

Re: RFC 2401 section 5.2.1

From: Jean-Michel COMBES <jeanmichel.combes@rd.francetelecom.fr>

Re: RFC 2401 section 5.2.1

From: Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net>

References:

RE: RFC 2401 section 5.2.1

From: Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net>

Prev by Date: RE: RFC 2401 section 5.2.1
Next by Date: RE: RFC 2401 section 5.2.1
Prev by thread: RE: RFC 2401 section 5.2.1
Next by thread: Re: RFC 2401 section 5.2.1
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread