[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IKE v2 Requirements and backwards compatability
So, whatever we do, the next protocol will have to use a different UDP port?
Should that be a requirement, or is that too protocol specific?
Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry Spencer" <henry@spsystems.net>
To: "Scott Fanning" <sfanning@cisco.com>
Cc: "IETF-IPSec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: IKE v2 Requirements and backwards compatability
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Scott Fanning wrote:
> > Should there be a requirement that IKEv2 be able to interoperate with
> > IKEv1? There is a large deployed base, and a migration path to the new
> > version should be an requirement.
>
> The migration path, clearly, is "support both". That's trivial if they
> are using different ports, although less so if IKEv2 stays on UDP/500.
>
> There is no way to require the two *protocols* to be interchangeable
> without sacrificing most of the benefits we hope to see from IKEv2. But
> it is implementations, not protocols, which interoperate.
>
> Henry Spencer
> henry@spsystems.net
>
Follow-Ups:
References: