Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-udp-encaps-00: non-500 ESP encap, 32bits of , i-cookie=0

["jshukla" <jshukla@earthlink.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ari Huttunen" <Ari.Huttunen@F-Secure.com>
>
> At the Helsinki bakeoff there were seven implementations of the latest
drafts,
> including us. Additional three had implementations of some earlier draft.
> This would be a good time for someone to provide really solid arguments
> against using just one port, if such arguments exist. Like, statistical
> calculations of actual overhead. The firewall-argument doesn't cut it, it

Have you guys considered how network based load-balancing
will work in your approach? This is a general question regarding
your approach, not using IKE port for ESP will not exactly help.

regards,
Jayant

---

References:

• Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-udp-encaps-00: non-500 ESP encap, 32bits of , i-cookie=0
• From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
• Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-udp-encaps-00: non-500 ESP encap, 32bits of , i-cookie=0
• From: Derek Atkins <warlord@mit.edu>
• Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-udp-encaps-00: non-500 ESP encap, 32bits of , i-cookie=0
• From: Ari Huttunen <Ari.Huttunen@F-Secure.com>

---

• Prev by Date: RE: Simplifying IKE
• Next by Date: ICMP PMTU processing relevant to IPSec.
• Prev by thread: Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-udp-encaps-00: non-500 ESP encap, 32bits of , i-cookie=0
• Next by thread: RE: draft-ietf-ipsec-udp-encaps-00: non-500 ESP encap, 32bits of , i-cookie=0
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread