RE: [Trigtran] TRIGTRAN Justification

Hi, Kacheong,

We're looking at two different topologies here.

I agree that your scenario is common on today's Internet.

On most of the deployed WIRELESS networks I've seen, 
almost all corporate IPSEC VPN tunnels terminate at 
the gateway into the wireless network (no IPSEC within 
the wireless network). In this case, TRIGTRAN-capable 
access router wouldn't be affected by IPSEC VPN tunnels.

Spencer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kacheong Poon [mailto:poon@cs.wisc.edu]
> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 1:27 PM
> To: Spencer Dawkins; trigtran@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Trigtran] TRIGTRAN Justification
> 
> 
> Included message from "Spencer Dawkins" <sdawkins@cynetanetworks.com>:
> 
> >----
> >Yes, we definitely need to think about tunnels.
> >
> >My immediate take is that, I don't know why TRIGTRAN 
> shouldn't work, although
> >a Transport IPSEC security gateway would have to relay the 
> trigger (but it
> >knows the relationship between the interior destination IP 
> address and the
> >tunnel, so this seems possible). But let's keep the question 
> open, for now.
> >----
> 
> My understanding of what Yogesh said is a little bit different.
> Consider the most common case scenario in today's Internet.  People
> use IPsec to setup VPN tunnels between their machines and corporate
> gateways.  In the scenario considered by TRIGTRAN, one end point of
> the tunnel is actually behind the "problematic link."  The router
> on the other side of the "problematic link" has no idea what is
> going on.
> 
> 							K. Poon.
> 
_______________________________________________
Trigtran mailing list
Trigtran@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trigtran