Re[2]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?
Jim Tiller <tiller_j@ins.com> Thu, 14 October 1999 21:09 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 OAA27935; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 14:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA00695 Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:22:42 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:22:18 -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: <15640.991014@ins.com>
To: "Scott G. Kelly" <skelly@redcreek.com>
CC: Ari Huttunen <Ari.Huttunen@datafellows.com>, ietf-ipsra@vpnc.org, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: Re[2]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?
In-reply-To: <38060149.F2DCC128@redcreek.com>
References: <38060149.F2DCC128@redcreek.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk
Hello Scott, Thursday, October 14, 1999, 12:14:01 PM, you wrote: Kelly> This dances around a bigger problem which keeps recurring in different Kelly> guises on this list: vpn and ipsec are not synonymous. I just had an extensive discussion with several associates about the interchange of the acronyms IPSec and VPN. VPN can be all encompassing where IPSec is specific. I guess my question to you, et al, is why do vendors attempt to "hack" L2TP and IPSec together and not augment L2TP with encryption, releasing IPSec from acting as a crutch? As you can easily see, I'm new to L2TP and behind the learning curve at this point. Just a simple thought, I am taking a comment you made to the next logical 'step', I guess. <snip>... Kelly> Once you thoroughly understand the PPP (or L2TP) protocol Kelly> in this light, then you can begin to design a security protocol which Kelly> secures them. I think the bottom line is, that protocol would *not* be Kelly> ipsec - it would be something else. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- 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