RE: NAT Traversal

["Chinna N.R. Pellacuru" <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Paul Koning wrote:

> Excerpt of message (sent 6 March 2002) by Chinna N.R. Pellacuru:
> > On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Paul Koning wrote:
> >
> > > Excerpt of message (sent 5 March 2002) by Chinna N.R. Pellacuru:
> > > > Same here. I'll also try and make one last attempt to try and convince you
> > > > that RFC2401 pretty strongly recomments that the IPsec SA be picked on
> > > > {dest IP, IPsec protocol, SPI}.
> > >
> > > There is absolutely nothing in any RFC that requires an IPsec
> > > implementation to allow the existence of two inbound SAs for
> > > <DA1,Prot1,SPI1> and <DA2,Prot2,SPI2> where DA1 != DA2 || Prot1 != Prot2
> > > such that SPI1 == SPI2.  Yes, that's allowed, no, it's not required.
> >
> > I just want to make sure that there is no technical content in this
> > discussion anymore.
> >
> > We are down to the phase where are trying to figure out what the meaning
> > of "is" is.
>
> I find your attempt to compare me with William J. Clinton utterly
> offensive and entirely unacceptable for a technical discussion.
>
>       paul
>

I found your comment about our implementation being "all hole" utterly
offensive and entirely unacceptable for a technical discussion.

    chinna

chinna narasimha reddy pellacuru
s/w engineer