Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway
Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Wed, 04 December 1996 03:39 UTC
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id WAA25412 for ipsec-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 22:39:36 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender: kent@po1.bbn.com (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v0300780caeca64224f60@[128.33.229.242]>
In-Reply-To: <199612030431.XAA25585@amaterasu.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
References: Your message of "Mon, 02 Dec 1996 18:56:39 EST." <v03007826aec91bcf76b6@[128.33.229.245]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 18:17:41 -0500
To: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway
Cc: ipsec@tis.com
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk
Mike, You mention early in your message the key issue, which is the focus of this debate. I maintained that it makes sense to use AH between a pair of firewalls ONLY if the header is applied to a tunneled SA. Once we agree on that, the rest ought to be easy. The disagreement has been on whether it is appropriate to have two (or more) instances of AH without an intervening IP header. We have seen several messages now arguing why this is not an appropriate header sequence, including your message to which I am responding. So, I don't disagree with the examples you cited. Steve
- AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Whelan, Bill
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Michael Richardson
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Michael Richardson
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway pau
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Whelan, Bill
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway William Allen Simpson
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Michael Richardson
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway David P. Kemp
- Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Ran Atkinson
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Michael Richardson
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Daniel Harkins
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Hilarie Orman
- Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Whelan, Bill
- Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Bill Sommerfeld
- Re[4]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Whelan, Bill
- Re: Re[4]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Bill Sommerfeld
- Re[4]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Karl Fox
- Re[5]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Whelan, Bill
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re[5]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Michael Richardson
- Re: Re[5]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Bob Monsour
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re: Re[5]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Steven Bellovin
- Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Whelan, Bill
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Brian McKenney
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Perry E. Metzger
- Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Brian McKenney
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Ran Atkinson
- Re: Re[5]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Ran Atkinson
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Bill Sommerfeld
- Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Uri Blumenthal
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Daniel Harkins
- Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Naganand Doraswamy
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Steven Bellovin
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Steven Bellovin
- Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Dan Frommer