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

Re: MTU considerations (was: Public key distribution methods?)

To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: Re: MTU considerations (was: Public key distribution methods?)
From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:58:20 -0800
In-Reply-To: <15817.23906.865682.76556@thomasm-u1.cisco.com>
References: <20021104100331.GA17307@alakoski.ton.tut.fi><p0510030db9ec7344cc68@[128.89.88.34]><15817.23906.865682.76556@thomasm-u1.cisco.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

At 10:20 AM -0800 11/6/02, Michael Thomas wrote:
>I'm not suggesting a solution here,

Er, I did. Yesterday, as a matter of fact. :-) See my message about 
adding the revised identity to IKEv2.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

Follow-Ups:
- Re: MTU considerations (was: Public key distribution methods?)
  - From: Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com>

References:
- Public key distribution methods?
  - From: Teemu Alakoski <teemu.alakoski@tut.fi>
- Re: Public key distribution methods?
  - From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
- MTU considerations (was: Public key distribution methods?)
  - From: Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: MTU considerations (was: Public key distribution methods?)
Next by Date: Re: MTU considerations (was: Public key distribution methods?)
Prev by thread: MTU considerations (was: Public key distribution methods?)
Next by thread: Re: MTU considerations (was: Public key distribution methods?)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread