ttp://www.ciscolive.com/>
Mike SullenbergerCCIE-2902
m...@cisco.com<mailto:m...@cisco.com>
Tel: +1 408 527 8702
Cisco.com
DISTINGUISHED ENGINEER. ENGINEERING
Product Development
Cisco Systems, Inc.
[http://www.cisco.com/assets/swa/img/thinkbeforeyouprint.gif]
Think befo
Timo,
Comments Inline.
Mike.
Mike Sullenberger, DSE
m...@cisco.com .:|:.:|:.
Customer Advocacy CISCO
-Original Message-
From: Timo Teräs [mailto:timo.te...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Timo
Teras
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 10:30 PM
To: Mike Sullenberger (mls
Timo,
Thank you very much for your comments. I had not realized that
anyone had tried to implement our additions to NHRP, it is nice
to hear that it wasn't too hard to do.
I have a couple of comments, inline.
Mike.
Mike Sullenberger, DSE
m...@cisco.com .:|:.:|:.
Customer Advocacy
]
Mike Sullenberger, DSE
m...@cisco.com.:|:.:|:.
Customer Advocacy CISCO
From: Stephen Kent [mailto:k...@bbn.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 1:57 PM
To: Mike Sullenberger (mls); Michael Richardson
Cc: Stephen Lynn (stlynn); draft-detienne-dm...@tools.ietf.org; Mark
they will have to all keep their
databases in sync, which adds more problems when trying to scale these networks
to 10s of thousands of nodes and larger.
Mike.
Mike Sullenberger, DSE
m...@cisco.commailto:m...@cisco.com.:|:.:|:.
Customer Advocacy CISCO
-Original Message
Lou,
Thanks, again answer inline :-).
Mike.
Mike Sullenberger, DSE
m...@cisco.com .:|:.:|:.
Customer Advocacy CISCO
-Original Message-
From: Lou Berger [mailto:lber...@labn.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:57 AM
To: Mike Sullenberger (mls)
Cc: IPsecme
Lou,
Thank you for your comments, more inline.
Mike.
Mike Sullenberger, DSE
m...@cisco.com .:|:.:|:.
Customer Advocacy CISCO
-Original Message-
From: Lou Berger [mailto:lber...@labn.net]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 3:29 PM
To: draft-detienne-dm
As I remember it IPv4 has a minimum packet size of 576 that won't (or at least
shouldn't be) fragmented by IP.
Mike.
Mike Sullenberger, DSE
m...@cisco.com .:|:.:|:.
Customer Advocacy CISCO
-Original Message-
From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun
Yoav,
Yes, I agree. In fact except for tunneling stealing bytes, you could likely
get away with 1500 bytes. I think that 1280 is good compromise, with perhaps a
hop down to 576 if 1280 runs into trouble.
Mike.
Mike Sullenberger, DSE
m...@cisco.com .:|:.:|:.
Customer Advocacy
.
++
| Mike Sullenberger; DSE |
| m...@cisco.com.:|:.:|:. |
| Customer Advocacy CISCO |
++
___
IPsec mailing list
a new never-before-published solution that's fine as well,
but I have no such intentions.
Yoav
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
++
| Mike Sullenberger; DSE
Mike == Mike Sullenberger m...@cisco.com writes:
Mike We use other tunnel mechanisms (GRE), because IPsec tunneling mode
Mike is lacking in functionality. For example, when you use GRE for the
Mike tunneling you also reduce the IPsec SA's that are needed to
Mike describe
.
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
++
| Mike
that some of us had previously discussed.
-geoff
___
++
| Mike Sullenberger; DSE |
| m...@cisco.com.:|:.:|:. |
| Customer Advocacy CISCO
14 matches
Mail list logo
