IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re[6]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?

Jim Tiller <tiller_j@ins.com> Thu, 14 October 1999 21:13 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 OAA28048; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 14:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA00724 Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:27:00 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:26:35 -0400
From: Jim Tiller <tiller_j@ins.com>
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.34a) S/N 569FD297
Reply-To: Jim Tiller <tiller_j@ins.com>
Organization: INS
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <14643.991014@ins.com>
To: "Shriver, John" <john.shriver@intel.com>
CC: 'Ari Huttunen' <Ari.Huttunen@datafellows.com>, ietf-ipsra@vpnc.org, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: Re[6]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?
In-reply-To: <392A357CE6FFD111AC3E00A0C99848B001D6A3DB@hdsmsx31.hd.intel.com>
References: <392A357CE6FFD111AC3E00A0C99848B001D6A3DB@hdsmsx31.hd.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk

Shriver> No.  The IP and UDP layers under L2TP don't do any correction of re-ordered
Shriver> packets.  That is not part of the service contracto or IP or UDP, only of
Shriver> TCP, which isn't involved.

Ohh. That burns:-) I COMPLETELY got twisted up. Thank you
for straightening me out!

Shriver> It also made it easier for Microsoft to integrate IPSec/VPN functionality
Shriver> into Windows 2000.  The IPSec community gains by having such a widely
Shriver> available IPSec implementation.

Agreed.

Thankx for your help!

-jim

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status