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

Re: Agenda for the Minneapolis meeting

To: Mark Baugher <mbaugher@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Agenda for the Minneapolis meeting
From: Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:02:52 -0800 (PST)
Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010315124326.00b5df70@mail.potlnd1.or.home.com>
References: <Your message of "Thu, 15 Mar 2001 14:04:35 EST." <000901c0ad83$316a3960$1e72788a@andrewk3.ca.alcatel.com><4.3.2.7.2.20010315124326.00b5df70@mail.potlnd1.or.home.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

Mark Baugher writes:
 > At 11:22 AM 3/15/2001 -0800, Dan Harkins wrote:
 > >   Can you be more specific on the danger?
 > >
 > >   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
 > 
 > kink and gdoi are not different protocols.  The extend IKE as the
 > standard allows.

  This has not been decided for KINK. The two current
  proposals both leverage ISAKMP though.

		 Mike

References:

Re: Agenda for the Minneapolis meeting

From: Mark Baugher <mbaugher@cisco.com>

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