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

Re: Agenda for the Minneapolis meeting

To: Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net>
Subject: Re: Agenda for the Minneapolis meeting
From: Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:05:52 -0800 (PST)
Cc: IP Security List <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.1010315145127.5702D-100000@spsystems.net>
References: <200103151922.f2FJMDx28708@potassium.cips.nokia.com><Pine.BSI.3.91.1010315145127.5702D-100000@spsystems.net>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com


Henry Spencer writes:
 > On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Dan Harkins wrote:
 > >   One problem I see with not combining the two is the trend to use
 > > UDP port 500 as a place to multiplex in different protocols. That is
 > > a bad thing, in my opinion...
 > 
 > Strongly agree.  Dealing with IKE is bad enough, without adding an
 > internal protocol multiplexer into the problem.  We really ought to get
 > the port-number assignment amended:  udp/500 should be IKE, not ISAKMP. 

   Speaking from the KINK perspective, I had never assumed
   that we would reuse the IKE port. 

   Which is to say that I agree with Henry who agrees with Dan.

	    Mike

References:

Re: Agenda for the Minneapolis meeting

From: Dan Harkins <dharkins@cips.nokia.COM>

Re: Agenda for the Minneapolis meeting

From: Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net>

Prev by Date: RE: Agenda for the Minneapolis meeting
Next by Date: Re: Agenda for the Minneapolis meeting
Prev by thread: Re: Agenda for the Minneapolis meeting
Next by thread: Re: Agenda for the Minneapolis meeting
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread