Re: [dhcwg] Re: Authentication of DHCP Relay Agent Options Using IPsec

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

{something rewrote the ipsec list to:
	   ipsec@lists.tislabs.com.cnri.reston.va.us
I'm guessing it gmane.org. Can you confirm what my message looked like
when it hit dhcwg@ietf.org? }

>>>>> "Van" == Van Aken Dirk <Dirk.VanAken@thomson.net> writes:
    Van> How do you come to the conclusion that DHCP relays are rather
    Van> "small boxes" and as a consequence don't need a full IKE
    Van> implementation ?

  You are looking at this from the wrong point of view.

  I'm claiming that DHCP relays *CAN* be small boxes, and so setting a
smaller footprint for what they need in terms of IKE benefits small
boxes without harming bigger boxes.

  Nothing prevents you from having a superset of what is required.

  (And what passes for a "small box" these days can be quite big)

- -- 
]       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

iQCVAwUBQzgOCoqHRg3pndX9AQHn6AP9F0GqCRkOHI0nvMaAYyRvc5ss+BMZfsRy
OIo/SvrPILkCsbdI8B4QX+fkpRs8m36boIIlVPQ24H8MpH4HtJD3thJhdMozF198
8kKtgNhnHUTd95GNhvCWaeZ6cOca0K1LogQxeduQhEt7y2CmRpyOYCv9+PyD1tuh
uHn3WnmqE0s=
=jZz3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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