l2f and Cisco???
Robert Moskowitz <rgm3@chrysler.com> Thu, 20 June 1996 15:19 UTC
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19378; 20 Jun 96 11:19 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19374; 20 Jun 96 11:19 EDT
Received: from neptune.tis.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10623; 20 Jun 96 11:19 EDT
Received: from neptune.tis.com by neptune.TIS.COM id aa21672; 20 Jun 96 10:59 EDT
Received: from relay.tis.com by neptune.TIS.COM id aa21658; 20 Jun 96 10:54 EDT
Received: by relay.tis.com; id KAA09488; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 10:56:18 -0400
Received: from sol.tis.com(192.33.112.100) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma009476; Thu, 20 Jun 96 10:55:51 -0400
Received: from relay.tis.com by tis.com (4.1/SUN-5.64) id AA13205; Thu, 20 Jun 96 10:55:49 EDT
Received: by relay.tis.com; id KAA09469; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 10:55:49 -0400
Received: from unknown(204.189.94.35) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma009432; Thu, 20 Jun 96 10:55:18 -0400
Received: by pilot.firewall.is.chrysler.com; id KAA18369; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 10:57:42 -0400
Received: from clhubgw1-le0.is.chrysler.com(172.29.128.203) by pilot.is.chrysler.com via smap (g3.0.1) id sma018365; Thu, 20 Jun 96 10:57:17 -0400
Received: from rgm3 by clhubgw1-nf0.is.chrysler.com (8.7.5/SMI-4.1) id LAA28132; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 11:00:34 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960620145419.00b74e04@pop3hub.is.chrysler.com>
X-Sender: t3125rm@pop3hub.is.chrysler.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 10:54:19 -0400
To: ipsec@tis.com
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm3@chrysler.com>
Subject: l2f and Cisco???
X-Orig-Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com
Precedence: bulk
Pointcast had a press release from last night from Cisco, Nortell, and Shiva announcing 'layer two forwarding' that they had submitted to the IETF for a standard. Can the Cisco and other members here comment on what l2f gives over ipsec? Why should l2f become more than an informational RFC and why even is it needed? Robert Moskowitz Chrysler Corporation (810) 758-8212
- l2f and Cisco??? Robert Moskowitz
- Re: l2f and Cisco??? Paul Ferguson
- Re: l2f and Cisco??? David Carrel