Re: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?
Ari Huttunen <Ari.Huttunen@datafellows.com> Wed, 20 October 1999 11:05 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 EAA07408; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 04:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id FAA25327 Wed, 20 Oct 1999 05:23:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <380D8ADE.617FAF60@DataFellows.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:26:54 +0300
From: Ari Huttunen <Ari.Huttunen@datafellows.com>
Organization: Data Fellows Oyj
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Chen <dchen@indusriver.com>
CC: ietf-ipsra@vpnc.org, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: Re: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?
References: <4.2.0.58.19991019095359.00a905c0@pop3.indusriver.com> <4.2.0.58.19991019130241.00a59f00@pop3.indusriver.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------62C872C8B54C5BB4355761EF"
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk
David Chen wrote: >> >> > >So, please show me what benefits PPP over L2TP over IPSec provides when >> > >compared >> > >to just running PPP over IPSec? If there are some, which is possible, >> > >wouldn't it be >> > >better to enhance IPSec protocol(s) to enable the same, instead of having >> > >L2TP? > > > It is better, if IPSec has all PPP features. > Why bother with L2TP? If you like to "enhance IPSec protocol(s)" > --- David I don't "like to enhance IPSec protocol(s)". Instead I would "like to solve real world problems with the least possible effort". In my view L2TP is wasted effort, if the only purpose of using it is to get PPP on top of IPSec. For other purposes it's fine. BTW, I don't particularly like my private emails to be forwarded to 'official' mailing lists without my permission.. -- Ari Huttunen phone: +358 9 859 900 Senior Software Engineer fax : +358 9 8599 0452 Data Fellows Corporation http://www.DataFellows.com F-Secure products: Integrated Solutions for Enterprise Security
- PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Ari Huttunen
- RE: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Shriver, John
- Re: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Ari Huttunen
- Re: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Scott G. Kelly
- Re[2]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Jim Tiller
- Re[2]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Stephen Kent
- RE: Re[2]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Shriver, John
- RE: Re[2]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Stephen Kent
- Re[2]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Jim Tiller
- Re[6]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Jim Tiller
- Re[4]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Jim Tiller
- RE: Re[4]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Shriver, John
- Re: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Scott G. Kelly
- Re: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Pyda Srisuresh
- RE: Re[2]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Bernard Aboba
- Re: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Ari Huttunen
- RE: Re[2]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Stephen Kent
- RE: Re[2]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Pyda Srisuresh
- RE: Re[2]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Stephen Kent
- RE: Re[2]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Pyda Srisuresh
- RE: Re[2]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Stephen Kent
- Re: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Paul Koning
- Re: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Ari Huttunen
- Re: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? David Chen
- Re: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? Ari Huttunen
- Re: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)? David Chen