[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

(usagi-users 02192) Re: IPSec over TCP

--On Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:28:57 AM +0100 "BUYCK Jacky
FTRD/DMI/CAE" <jacky.buyck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Really ?
>> Because there is solution that encapsulate IPSec packet in UDP and
>> in TCP (the CISCO VPN 300 do the two kind of encapsulation).
>
>Did you mean that the full ESP payload was encapsulated in UDP or TCP
>or only IKE over TCP instead of UDP?

First choice. I search after all IKE and ESP encapsulation in TCP.

>If first, UDP encapsulation is a common method for NAT traversal,
>perhaps Cisco extend this for TCP also to make transport more
>reliable.
>
>UDP encapsulation is afaik supported by newer FreeS/WAN (correct me
>if I'm wrong). TCP encap never heard.

I have all information about UDP encap. I need some about TCP encap
because 
I wasn't abble to find anything on the net. So like I've see this on
USAGI post
I've thank that someone have ideas of good and bad points regarding this
subject.

>But both encaps are not needed for IPv6 because here is no NAT
>defined.
>       Peter
>-- 
>Dr. Peter Bieringer                     http://www.bieringer.de/pb/
>GPG/PGP Key 0x958F422D               mailto: pb at bieringer dot de 
>Deep Space 6 Co-Founder and Core Member  http://www.deepspace6.net/


I'll seach a little bit more. So thanks for your help.