[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: Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:25:08 -0800 (PST)
Cc: "Shoichi 'Ne' Sakane" <sakane@ydc.co.jp>, Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.1001128110304.1529B-100000@spsystems.net>
References: <20001128233617M.sakane@ydc.co.jp><Pine.BSI.3.91.1001128110304.1529B-100000@spsystems.net>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

Henry Spencer writes:
 > Perhaps.  But the existence of protocols which depend on it should not be
 > advanced as a reason, unless it is first demonstrated that those protocols
 > fundamentally need AH and could not work with ESP.

   The canonical example I keep hearing about is that
   ip6 binding updates require AH and can't live
   with ESP. I'm not sure I buy that, and I'm not
   sure whether there isn't tail-wagging-dog
   going on there, but until that gets sorted out,
   AH at least has one vocal set of partisans.

	 Mike

References:

Re: RFC 2401 section 5.2.1

From: "Shoichi 'Ne' Sakane" <sakane@ydc.co.jp>

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: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipsec-ike-hash-revised-02.txt
Prev by thread: Re: RFC 2401 section 5.2.1
Next by thread: Re: RFC 2401 section 5.2.1
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread