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

Re: Son-of-IKE Performance

To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>, andrew.krywaniuk@alcatel.com
Subject: Re: Son-of-IKE Performance
From: Alex Alten <Alten@netvista.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 15:05:20 -0800
Cc: "'Dan Harkins'" <dharkins@tibernian.com>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-Reply-To: <20011208035926.C4BB47B55@berkshire.research.att.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

At 10:59 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>In message <001a01c17f9b$6d251610$1e72788a@andrewk3.ca.newbridge.com>,
"Andrew 
>Krywaniuk" writes:
>>
>>Here's a question. Have the authors of JFK given any thought to how (if?)
>>they will incorporate NAT-traversal? With IKEv2, the already completed
>>drafts from IKEv1 can be presumably carried forward.
>
>JFK doesn't rely on IP addresses at all -- it can pass through NATs 
>just fine.
>

Wow!  Now I am interested in reading the draft.  Since IP addresses are so
ephemeral and insecure this, if designed correctly, would be a fundamental
step forward.

- Alex
--

Alex Alten
Alten@NetVista.Com

Follow-Ups:

Re: Son-of-IKE Performance

From: Ari Huttunen <Ari.Huttunen@f-secure.com>

References:

Re: Son-of-IKE Performance

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>

Prev by Date: suggestion for JFK
Next by Date: RE: UDP DoS attack in Win2k via IKE (fwd)
Prev by thread: RE: Son-of-IKE Performance
Next by thread: Re: Son-of-IKE Performance
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread