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

Re: Simplifying IKE

To: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@East.Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: Simplifying IKE
From: Jan Vilhuber <vilhuber@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 18:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
cc: Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com>, Ari Huttunen <Ari.Huttunen@F-Secure.com>, Dan McDonald <Dan.McDonald@sun.com>, Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-Reply-To: <200108092352.f79NqSJ20568@thunk.east.sun.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:

> > Ari Huttunen writes:
> >  > Thus my preference would be to have a four packet phase 1 (base mode) and
> >  > a four packet quick mode.
> > 
> >    Gad. Doesn't anybody care about link up times??? 
> 
> Smooshing phase 1 and phase 2 together begins to look very attractive
> when quick mode isn't very (quick).
> 
In the above example it's still half of a full exchange. I find that
acceptable for some applications (by no means all).

If you want faster setup times, we'll need another protocol (or use KINK and
install kerberos; depends on your customers' needs).

jan
 --
Jan Vilhuber                                            vilhuber@cisco.com
Cisco Systems, San Jose                                     (408) 527-0847

References:

Re: Simplifying IKE

From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@East.Sun.COM>

Prev by Date: Re: Simplifying IKE
Next by Date: Re: Simplifying IKE
Prev by thread: Re: Simplifying IKE
Next by thread: Re: Simplifying IKE
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread