Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway
Naganand Doraswamy <naganand@ftp.com> Wed, 04 December 1996 21:02 UTC
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id QAA27681 for ipsec-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:02:55 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961204211101.00fc2204@mailserv-H.ftp.com>
X-Sender: naganand@mailserv-H.ftp.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 16:11:01 -0500
To: Ran Atkinson <rja@cisco.com>
From: Naganand Doraswamy <naganand@ftp.com>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway
Cc: ipsec@tis.com, rja@cisco.com
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk
> I am aware that many implementers of AH have in fact implemented a >"tunnel-mode AH" (which looks like this: [ip:r1->r2][ah][ip:h1->h2][ulp], >where r1,r2 are security gateways and h1,h2 are end nodes). I believe that >the best approach is to simply add a definition of this tunnel-mode AH into >the AH base specification. This also has the virtue of having the least >amount of negative impact on interoperability of existing AH implementations. > Agreed. I had raised this issue of AH in tunnel mode a couple of months back, and I didnt get any message against it. I guess adding it to the base spec will help. --Naganand ---------------------------------------------------------------- naganand@ftp.com Tel #: (508)684-6743 (O)
- 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