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

Re: On the Use of SCTP with IPsec

To: Jari Arkko <Jari.Arkko@lmf.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: On the Use of SCTP with IPsec
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:15:03 -0500
Cc: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>, Ari Huttunen <Ari.Huttunen@F-Secure.com>, jarkko@piuha.net, ji@research.att.com, angelos@cis.upenn.edu, rrs@cisco.com, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

In message <3A9681D2.58DD7033@lmf.ericsson.se>, Jari Arkko writes:


>2. The SCTP-people really want the possibility to have multiple
>   separate IP addresses in identities. Currently, this isn't
>   possible. Note that even if a VPN gateway vendor doesn't
>   need or want this extension, the need for the SCTP people
>   is still very real; they feel strongly about this (even
>   if it just an optimization in the end).

More precisely, this is an absolute requirement for SCTP -- if they 
can't have that, IPsec is useless to them.
>
>(One big question mark though I have in the current IETF ipsec
>work is whether everything waits for the publication of a new
>mega ipsec RFC or if small optional extensions can be published
>individually...)

While ultimately the question is up the the Chairs and the ADs, per
IETF process amendments can be issued via separate RFCs.


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

Prev by Date: A new I-D on authorization issues in IPv6
Next by Date: Re: On the Use of SCTP with IPsec
Prev by thread: Re: On the Use of SCTP with IPsec
Next by thread: A new I-D on authorization issues in IPv6
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread