Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway

Daniel Harkins <dharkins@cisco.com> Mon, 02 December 1996 00:34 UTC

Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id TAA20441 for ipsec-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:34:34 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199612020037.QAA07179@spook>
X-Authentication-Warning: dharkins-ss20.cisco.com: Host localhost.cisco.com didn't use HELO protocol
To: pau@watson.ibm.com
Cc: ipsec@tis.com, isakmp-oakley@cisco.com
Subject: Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 27 Nov 1996 15:53:29 EST." <9611272053.AA22380@secpwr.watson.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 16:37:41 -0800
From: Daniel Harkins <dharkins@cisco.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

Pau-Chen wrote:
> I have a question triggered by the discussion :
> 
>   If two firewalls (gateways), IDii and IDir, did a successful ISAKMP
>   phase-II proxy negotiation for IDui and IDur. Then, which one is the
>   right usage of the SA resulting from the negotiation :
> 
>   1. The SA is shared between IDii and IDir (the gateways), and IDii
>      IDir are performing IPSEC protection on traffic between IDui and
>      IDur. In this case, IDui and IDur are unware of the IPSEC
>      protection.
> 
>   2. The SA is shared between IDui and IDur and IDui and IDur perform
>      IPSEC by themselves. IDii and IDir (the gateways) become more or less
>      (IPSEC) transparent.

Number one is the correct usage. 

  Dan.