IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Re[2]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Thu, 14 October 1999 19:23 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 MAA25938; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA29981 Thu, 14 Oct 1999 13:54:15 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: kent@po1.bbn.com
Message-Id: <v04020a0bb42bc7e30b77@[171.78.6.226]>
In-Reply-To: <392A357CE6FFD111AC3E00A0C99848B001D6A3D4@hdsmsx31.hd.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 13:49:50 -0400
To: "Shriver, John" <john.shriver@intel.com>
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?
Cc: ietf-ipsra@vpnc.org, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk

John,

Apropos your most recent message, I should have prefeced my comments with
the note that I advocate use of native IPsec for transport of IP traffic,
not for transport of protocol suites, where there may be a need for real,
layer 2 tunneling.

Steve

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status