RE: IKE must have no Heirs

[Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com>]

Horn, Mike writes:
 > Derek,
 > 
 > Want to keep this friendly, but obviously I don't agree with your points.
 > You have a vested interest in KINK, I have a vested interest in IPsec VPNs.
 > This influences both of our views.  I noticed you didn't respond to my
 > question about AH...
 > 
 >  > 
 >  > First, all the world is not VPN.
 > 
 > see above.
 > 
 >  > Second, there are alternate keying protocols (KINK, for example)
 > 
 > Has KINK produced any _standards_ other than the requirements (RFC 3129)?
 > How many IPsec vendors currently offer production support for KINK?

   KINK is considerably farther ahead than SOI(lent-green?).
   We should be able to go to last call soon after this 
   meeting. Many of Radia's improve-ike suggestions are 
   part of the KINK base spec. To give an idea of complexity,
   it took me about 1 month of 2/3's time to implement almost
   all of the requirements of the spec, and I expect that
   it will take a similar amount of time to clean it up to
   a feature complete status. So we're not talking about
   major development time here. If nothing else, I'm hoping
   that KINK will serve as a test of many of Radia's improvements
   to see if they actually do help with interoperability, etc.


	     Mike

---

References:

• RE: IKE must have no Heirs
• From: "Horn, Mike" <mhorn@virtela.net>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Simplifying IKE
• Next by Date: RE: Simplifying IKE
• Prev by thread: RE: IKE must have no Heirs
• Next by thread: Re: IKE must have no Heirs
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread