> The "P" in
> "VPN" stands for "privacy", which requires encryption ...
I expected the term or concept of "data confidentiality" (the "p" is
silent) to be bundled into this service model, not "privacy".
Eric
> The most popular IETF standard for VPNs is IPsec using ESP.
IPsec could be improved for wireless:
http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/pilc/list/archive/1012.html
http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/pilc/list/archive/1022.html
Now PPP-over-SSH isn't any better, just a lot easier and much less
expensive for most
At 2:19 PM -0700 9/26/00, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 07:56 PM 9/26/00 +0100, Lloyd Wood wrote:
>>Beg to differ. Encapsulation makes the VPN virtual.
>>Encryption ensures that the VPN is private.
>>
>>All networks are privately managed, whether virtual or not; referring
>>to that explicitly seems a bi
> Usage of language does change and meaning does evolve. (has anyone set
> up a VPN sans encryption recently?)
Well, does it count if the encryption doesn't cover the whole path?
I'm aware of a number of ipsec "vpn" hardware vendors out there who
are looking to put encryption in ISP edge "concen
At 07:56 PM 9/26/00 +0100, Lloyd Wood wrote:
>Beg to differ. Encapsulation makes the VPN virtual.
>Encryption ensures that the VPN is private.
>
>All networks are privately managed, whether virtual or not; referring
>to that explicitly seems a bit pointless to me...
while your explanation is ent
> As someone who was around when the notion of an I-D was created, let
> me disagree somewhat. There was a very definite intent to cause I-Ds
> to "officially" disappear after a limited time frame.
I don't doubt that at all. But did folks really think that I-Ds
would completely vanish from t
As someone who was around when the notion of an I-D was created, let
me disagree somewhat. There was a very definite intent to cause I-Ds
to "officially" disappear after a limited time frame.
Steve
For a number of years I have joking referred to VPNs without
encryption as "virtually private networks" as opposed to "virtual
private networks," to emphasize the difference. But, I agree, the
historical use of the acronym VPN did not imply crypto security, just
"private" management.
Steve
> > IETF's current policy makes the I-D series more valuable than it would
> > be if [...] I-Ds did not expire at all
>
> I see your point, but there's an easy solution. If there are two
> interfaces (or one, with a checkbox), and the default is to search only the
> I-Ds under 6 months old, then
>>Others might have a very different definition of VPN. The "P" in "VPN"
>>stands for "privacy", which
>I thought the word was "private" rather than "privacy". "Private" has two
>different meanings, one for shutting out others from seeing, but the other
>referring to restricted management, as
At 09:42 AM 9/26/00 -0700, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
>Others might have a very different definition of VPN. The "P" in "VPN"
>stands for "privacy", which
I thought the word was "private" rather than "privacy". "Private" has two
different meanings, one for shutting out others from seeing, but t
Keith Moore wrote:
> IETF's current policy makes the I-D series more valuable than it would
> be if [...] I-Ds did not expire at all
I see your point, but there's an easy solution. If there are two
interfaces (or one, with a checkbox), and the default is to search only the
I-Ds under 6 months o
At 4:09 AM +0200 9/24/00, Fred Baker wrote:
>A VPN is, by my definition, any case where one overlays the global
>Internet with another private Internet using tunneling. Tunneling
>procedures today include MPLS, IPSEC, IP/IP, GRE/IP, and probably
>several others.
Others might have a very differ
Keith Moore wrote:
[..]
> It just means
> that IETF is removing the most widely known and most authoritative
> source of an I-D after six months.
I think that was my point.
[..]
> IETF's current policy makes the I-D series more valuable than it would
> be if either I-Ds did no
> I just love this mythology that "expires in 6 months"
> means expunged from all retrievable record in 6 months.
nobody believes that, nor has anybody said they really want that.
just because IETF has a policy of not making I-Ds available after
6 months does not mean that IETF's goal is to sup
Tim Salo wrote:
>
> > Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:36:00 -0700
> > From: Joe Touch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
> >
> > > >From RFC 2026, Section 10.3.1. All Contributions:
> >
> > There are many IDs (a couple of which I also wrote) which
> > predat
> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:34:54 -0400
>
> > To the contrary, I believe that you granted broad permissions when you
> > submitted a document as an Internet Draft.
>
> a. not everybody uses the "anyth
Keith Moore wrote:
> > I just checked - my browser bookmarks include at least 5 bookmarked references
> > to the output of search pages. People are going to do it. ;)
>
> I'm not at all sure that we want to go the search engine route, but
> it's a trivial matter to make a search engine return UR
> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:36:00 -0700
> From: Joe Touch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
>
> > >From RFC 2026, Section 10.3.1. All Contributions:
>
> There are many IDs (a couple of which I also wrote) which
> predate that RFC which are being proposed
good. so this thread can be closed now?
gja
Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > I just love this mythology that "expires in 6 months"
>
> so do i. it makes it clear that, if you keep it, it's your game
> not ours. we don't support it beyond six months.
>
> randy
--
__
Tim Salo wrote:
>
> > Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:56:02 -0700
> > From: Joe Touch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
> > [...]
> > PS - is no one else alarmed by the re-publishing of material
> > submitted under an explicit agreement for 'removal af
21 matches
Mail list logo
