Re: pf_key comments
Naganand Doraswamy <naganand@ftp.com> Fri, 03 January 1997 18:25 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa13341; 3 Jan 97 13:25 EST
Received: from portal.ex.tis.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15189;
3 Jan 97 13:25 EST
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id
NAA23662 for ipsec-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:17:16 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970103182640.00ba6404@mailserv-H.ftp.com>
X-Sender: naganand@mailserv-H.ftp.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 13:26:40 -0500
To: perry@piermont.com
From: Naganand Doraswamy <naganand@ftp.com>
Subject: Re: pf_key comments
Cc: Rodney Thayer <rodney@sabletech.com>, ipsec@tis.com
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk
Perry, >Its completely unreasonable to send the IV from the application. Since >IVs have to be sent on every packet, that would mean you would need to >do a PF_KEY operation on every packet. This is not going to be >feasable. > IV is optional field. This is used in cases where we use a constant IV. --Naganand ---------------------------------------------------------------- naganand@ftp.com Tel #: (508)684-6743 (O)
- Re: pf_key comments Naganand Doraswamy
- Re: pf_key comments Dennis Glatting
- Re: pf_key comments Dennis Glatting