Re: [IPsec] IPsecME virtual interim meeting (revised date)

["Valery Smyslov" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Yoav,

> I agree with your conclusion (that we should do an IKE fragment thing, 
> maybe based on your draft).
>
> However, 2 comments:
>
>  1. You can never know if anything is IPR free. At best you can say that 
> nobody has said anything yet.

Yes, I agree. I only meant that neither I, nor my company didn't claim IPR.
Of course, somebody might have claimed IPR for similar approach before.

>  2. IKE over TCP has worked for over 10 years in my company's products and 
> worked well. So the details can be ironed out.

Of course, although from my understanding IKE over TCP for IKEv2 will have 
more issues to iron out than for IKEv1...

> The reason > we abandoned this technology is that the broken SOHO devices 
> began to not only drop fragments, but to also
> drop anything that wasn't TCP to a specific group of ports. IKE-over-TCP 
> could not solve this issue.

Unfortunately, IKE fragmentation couldn't solve this either...