IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?

"Scott G. Kelly" <skelly@redcreek.com> Thu, 14 October 1999 23:00 UTC

Received: from lists.tislabs.com (portal.gw.tislabs.com [192.94.214.101]) by mail.imc.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA29487; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA01311 Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:01:10 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <380645E8.E7FAD4B@redcreek.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 14:06:48 -0700
From: "Scott G. Kelly" <skelly@redcreek.com>
Organization: RedCreek Communications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jim Tiller <tiller_j@ins.com>
CC: Ari Huttunen <Ari.Huttunen@datafellows.com>, ietf-ipsra@vpnc.org, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: Re: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?
References: <38060149.F2DCC128@redcreek.com> <15640.991014@ins.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk

Jim Tiller wrote:
> 
> Hello Scott,
> 
> Thursday, October 14, 1999, 12:14:01 PM, you wrote:
> 
> Kelly> This dances around a bigger problem which keeps recurring in different
> Kelly> guises on this list: vpn and ipsec are not synonymous.
>  I just had an extensive discussion with several associates
>  about the interchange of the acronyms IPSec and VPN. VPN
>  can be all encompassing where IPSec is specific.
>  I guess my question to you, et al, is why do vendors attempt
>  to "hack" L2TP and IPSec together and not augment L2TP with
>  encryption, releasing IPSec from acting as a crutch?

I'll have to leave this one to the L2TP experts here.  However, I will
note that vendors attempt to fill customer needs quickly, and sometimes
this motivates vendors to find a quick way (not necessarily the best
way, mind you) to make things work.

Scott

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status