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

Re: IPsec issue #46 -- No need for nested SAs or SA bundles

To: kent@bbn.com
Subject: Re: IPsec issue #46 -- No need for nested SAs or SA bundles
From: Markku Savela <msa@burp.tkv.asdf.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 00:40:18 +0300
CC: mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-reply-to: <p05210608bb7a7b509355@[128.89.89.75]> (message from Stephen Kenton Tue, 2 Sep 2003 13:39:31 -0400)
References: <12109.1062213349@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> <p05210608bb7a7b509355@[128.89.89.75]>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com


Just a note: my implementation can do nested SA's, assuming you mean
situation where you have an internal node "Another" that wants IPSEC,
but which happens to be behind a security gateway SG:

              SA1
MyNode  <---------------> SG
        <----------------------------------------> Another
              SA2

MyNode has nested SA2's, but both SG and Another would not see nested
SA's.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: IPsec issue #46 -- No need for nested SAs or SA bundles
  - From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
- Re: IPsec issue #46 -- No need for nested SAs or SA bundles
  - From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>

References:
- Re: IPsec issue #46 -- No need for nested SAs or SA bundles
  - From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>

Prev by Date: Re: IPsec issue #46 -- No need for nested SAs or SA bundles
Next by Date: Fwd: IPsec issue #46 -- No need for nested SAs or SA bundles
Prev by thread: Re: IPsec issue #46 -- No need for nested SAs or SA bundles
Next by thread: Re: IPsec issue #46 -- No need for nested SAs or SA bundles
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread