Re: [Ipsec] VID for nat traversal

[Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


>>>>> "VPNC" == VPNC  <Paul> writes:
    >> It is my understanding that someone who implemented -03 can
    >> interop with someone who has done -08.
    >> 
    >> Tero, is this wrong?  That -04 thru -08 are all just editorial
    >> changes.
    >> 
    >> If so, it seems that using -03 is the correct answer.

    VPNC> Er, why is that the "correct answer"? It doesn't matter as
    VPNC> long as we all agree on one answer. There is no rule that says

  Because a product that was built and deployed when -03 was out will
have the -03 VID, and since it will continue to interop with a -08, it
seems to serve no purpose to use any other ID.
  If we use -08 VID, then I just have to have add -08 VID to the
list. There is no gain, no change in functionality over the -03 VID,
just extra code.

- --
]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson,    Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr@xelerance.com      http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys

iQCVAwUBQJAkgYqHRg3pndX9AQGEJQQApSkaCLBzzxPOW3KTVFys/mis9kug2Z7U
DpnVEcKRpPb3mU2+/PLXWGb9u5dMKfpCSafMKJEXO7shWZkr2HCo0fxr3X/fpxcV
npu7JcW8BH0+1tdN3WkwkzHK+0iKHZdCYicD3StfGrygoIo4IbpwGlu0aTx0dXiO
iz3ktdrjGOA=
=stMQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Ipsec mailing list
Ipsec@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec