This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/
[ipv6-wg] RIPE-501 replacement document - IPsec question to community - we need your input.
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE-501 replacement document - IPsec question tocommunity - we need your input.
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE-501 replacement document - IPsec question to community - we need your input.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
S.P.Zeidler
spz at serpens.de
Tue Dec 27 20:11:50 CET 2011
Hi, Thus wrote Florian Weimer (fweimer at bfk.de): > Yes. Even if we could achieve agreement on a subset of devices where > it's supposed to make sense, "IPsec" is really a catchphrase for a set > of related protocols, so anyone who actually needs some of it needs to > ask for it explicitly anyway. My experience differs. I have a bunch of site-to-site VPNs on IPSEC, partially to not very large sites, and most enterprisey routers I've met can do an IPSEC tunnel just fine. How many sizeable enterprises or government entities do you know that really reside in just one building or even campus? The requirement to be able to connect a satellite office to headquarters is not really esoteric. regards, spz -- spz at serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler)
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE-501 replacement document - IPsec question tocommunity - we need your input.
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE-501 replacement document - IPsec question to community - we need your input.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]