[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IPsec !?, was: Re: CGA Use with HBA in Shim6 IETF Meeting July 10, 2006

To: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
Subject: Re: IPsec !?, was: Re: CGA Use with HBA in Shim6 IETF Meeting July 10, 2006
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@point6.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:31:32 +0200
Cc: "Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>, "shim6-wg" <shim6@psg.com>, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:19:29 +0300. <beb2a99163023fe3efaaf40dc75d9700@it.uc3m.es>

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   so, saying that IPSec provides much more benefits than HBA/CGA but that 

=> IPsec (cf RFC 4301 introduction).

   cannot be used because they rely in an infrastructure that is 
   impossiible to deploy in a reasonable time frame is as good than to say 
   that IPSec is not a viable alternative, which imho should be the 
   conclusion from this exchange, would you agree with that?
   
=> I agree if you add the word "general" in front of "alternative".
To make the use of IPsec impossible as a limited alternative is more
arguable. To make shim6 and IPsec compatible is a third topics, the
question was opened by Jim and is not yet closed.
   
Regards

Francis.Dupont@point6.net

Follow-Ups:
- Re: IPsec !?, was: Re: CGA Use with HBA in Shim6 IETF Meeting July 10, 2006
  - From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>

References:
- Re: IPsec !?, was: Re: CGA Use with HBA in Shim6 IETF Meeting July 10, 2006
  - From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>

Prev by Date: Re: CGA Use with HBA in Shim6 IETF Meeting July 10, 2006
Next by Date: Re: IPsec !?, was: Re: CGA Use with HBA in Shim6 IETF Meeting July 10, 2006
Previous by thread: Re: IPsec !?, was: Re: CGA Use with HBA in Shim6 IETF Meeting July 10, 2006
Next by thread: Re: IPsec !?, was: Re: CGA Use with HBA in Shim6 IETF Meeting July 10, 2006
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread