eeing it progress on Informational track. I believe also,
that a deterministic approach would be quicker and easier. I suggest
the "visibility" draft remain on the WG Standards track as it is more
implementable.
_
Dragan Grebovich, CISSP
Nortel Networks
Ente
g] On Behalf
Of Yoav Nir
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 5:16 AM
To: Grebovich, Dragan (BL60:SF00); ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IPsec] draft-kivinen-ipsecme-esp-null-heuristics comments
Dragan Grebovich wrote:
Hi Tero
I reviewed your heuristics draft and I believe it is in
AM
To: Grebovich, Dragan (BL60:SF00); ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [IPsec] draft-kivinen-ipsecme-esp-null-heuristics comments
Dragan Grebovich wrote:
Yoav
I apologize for not being clearer earlier. I was not suggesting
any new/different policy enforc
I looked for some traffic stats in a real, large enterprise network and
I found that UDP comprises 25-30% vs. TCP 70-75% of all traffic. The
stats were measured on multiple places in the network, and multiple
samples were taken over the past 6 weeks. Also, there is a slow but
consistent growth of
Sounds good to me. That's all I wanted from Day One. :-)
-Original Message-
From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Paul Hoffman
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:56 AM
To: IPsecme WG
Subject: [IPsec] Potential way forward for IPsecME on ESP-NULL
We
Yes and Yes.
I supported WESP from the beginning, because it allows intermediate
systems to perform DPI on ESP-NULL packets. I was not in favor of
heuristics - not because it is a bad solution (on the contrary) - but
because many products we have/make today could not be upgraded to
support it. M
