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

Re: revised IPsec processing model: Q: VID and forwarding function

To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: revised IPsec processing model: Q: VID and forwarding function
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@east.sun.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 06:46:38 -0400
cc: ipsec mailingList <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 21 Jul 2003 12:04:39 EDT." <p05210608bb41becbcfea@[128.89.89.40]>
Reply-to: sommerfeld@east.sun.com
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

> >Perhaps we should use a term like "policy enforcement point" rather
> >than "virtual interface"?
> 
> I am not absolutely wedded to the term "virtual interface" but it is 
> primarily a routing construct and so I hesitate to use the term you 
> mention above.  I fear that "policy" is too generic a term these days 
> to be a useful modifier anymore.

"naming is hard".

In a fit of whimsy, I propose "IPsec tollbooth"

							- Bill

References:
- Re: revised IPsec processing model: Q: VID and forwarding function
  - From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>

Prev by Date: Re: revised IPsec processing model: Q: VID and forwarding function
Next by Date: New mailing list to discuss IP layer signalling security
Prev by thread: Re: revised IPsec processing model: Q: VID and forwarding function
Next by thread: Re: revised IPsec processing model: Q: VID and forwarding function
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread