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

Re: Another NAT Traversal question

To: Yoav Nir <ynir@CheckPoint.com>
Subject: Re: Another NAT Traversal question
From: Uri Blumenthal <uri@bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:04:13 -0500
Cc: "'Ari Huttunen'" <Ari.Huttunen@f-secure.com>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Disposition-Notification-To: Uri Blumenthal <uri@bell-labs.com>
Organization: Lucent Tehcnologies / Bell Labs
Original-CC: "'Ari Huttunen'" <Ari.Huttunen@f-secure.com>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
References: <001201c2dd75$7fd65420$292e1dc2@YnirNew>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02

Yoav Nir wrote:
> Sure you can do L2TP/IPsec with tunnel mode.........
> I also believe that transport mode is not worth the trouble, but other
> people disagree.

I second this opinion.

References:
- RE: Another NAT Traversal question
  - From: "Yoav Nir" <ynir@CheckPoint.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Now a question on legacy authentication
Next by Date: Re: Configuration portion of OPEN ISSUES...
Prev by thread: RE: Another NAT Traversal question
Next by thread: Re: Another NAT Traversal question
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread