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

[marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

El 31/07/2006, a las 16:31, Francis Dupont escribió:

>  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".

agree

meaning for the general case (in particular for the case that there is 
no IPSec SA currently being used for the communication)

> 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.

i don't see any problems with IPSec and shim compatibility.... do you 
see any issues/troubles there? could you expand on this?

thanks, marcelo

> Regards
>
> Francis.Dupont@point6.net