On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Phil Karn wrote:
> I've been saying for some time that we need a IP-over-SSL tunneling
> protocol standard. ISPs would *never* dare block TCP port 443, since
> as we all know the only important Internet application is to let
> people buy stuff online...
You can do this using
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Phil Karn wrote:
> I've been saying for some time that we need a IP-over-SSL tunneling
> protocol standard. ISPs would *never* dare block TCP port 443, since
> as we all know the only important Internet application is to let
> people buy stuff online...
You can tunnel PPP ov
>Is making an SSL connection creating a VPN? It's really not much
>different in an abstract sense. Most applications are using browsers
I've been saying for some time that we need a IP-over-SSL tunneling
protocol standard. ISPs would *never* dare block TCP port 443, since
as we all know the onl
Is making an SSL connection creating a VPN? It's really not much
different in an abstract sense. Most applications are using browsers
as interfaces anyway. So I think this will only encourage businesses
to set up SSL server/client models instead of general VPNs.
-Peter
--
---
Has comcast defined a VPN (i.e., IPsec, SSH, etc.)?
--
Ian Brown writes:
> > ... subscribers to agree not to use the service as a means to create
a VPN.
At 10:52 PM 8/19/2000 -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Could someone describe to me (in my ignorance) the problem this rule is
intended to solve?
Sounds like a market differentiation tact
Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> Ian Brown writes:
> > ... subscribers to agree not to use the service as a means to create a VPN.
>
> Could someone describe to me (in my ignorance) the problem this rule
> is intended to solve?
Loss of revenue from leased lines. BT did a number of interesting things
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > ... subscribers to agree not to use the service as a means to create a
> > VPN.
>
> Could someone describe to me (in my ignorance) the problem this rule is
> intended to solve?
The only "problem" that this approach appears intended to "so
Ian Brown writes:
> ... subscribers to agree not to use the service as a means to create a VPN.
Could someone describe to me (in my ignorance) the problem this rule
is intended to solve?
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com | If you think
Crynwr sells support for free s
