Re: Re[4]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway
Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@apollo.hp.com> Mon, 02 December 1996 23:08 UTC
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id SAA22859 for ipsec-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 18:08:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199612022310.SAA00742@thunk.orchard.medford.ma.us>
X-Authentication-Warning: thunk.orchard.medford.ma.us: sommerfeld owned process doing -bs
To: "Whelan, Bill" <bwhelan@nei.com>
Cc: kent@bbn.com, ho@earth.hpc.org, ipsec@tis.com
Subject: Re: Re[4]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway
In-Reply-To: bwhelan's message of Mon, 02 Dec 1996 17:27:43 -0500. <9611028495.AA849576552@netx.nei.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 18:10:28 -0500
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@apollo.hp.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk
> Well I'm not sure I understand the notation (AH defined in RFC 1826 > doesn't have source/destination addresses), but I was thinking of the > former case. What I meant by "AH[x->y]" was AH using an SA or SPI from x to y.. In other words, x and y know the SA's key; y allocated the SPI, and is prepared to receive traffic authenticated using the key. Does that make sense? - Bill
- AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Whelan, Bill
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Michael Richardson
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Michael Richardson
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway pau
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Whelan, Bill
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway William Allen Simpson
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Michael Richardson
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway David P. Kemp
- Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Ran Atkinson
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Michael Richardson
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Daniel Harkins
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Hilarie Orman
- Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Whelan, Bill
- Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Bill Sommerfeld
- Re[4]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Whelan, Bill
- Re: Re[4]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Bill Sommerfeld
- Re[4]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Karl Fox
- Re[5]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Whelan, Bill
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re[5]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Michael Richardson
- Re: Re[5]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Bob Monsour
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re: Re[5]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Steven Bellovin
- Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Whelan, Bill
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Brian McKenney
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Perry E. Metzger
- Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Brian McKenney
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Ran Atkinson
- Re: Re[5]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Ran Atkinson
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Bill Sommerfeld
- Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Uri Blumenthal
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Daniel Harkins
- Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Naganand Doraswamy
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Steven Bellovin
- Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Steven Bellovin
- Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Stephen Kent
- Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway Dan Frommer