On May 7, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Valery Smyslov
wrote:
>
>
>> The reason > we abandoned this technology is that the broken SOHO devices
>> began to not only drop fragments, but to also
>> drop anything that wasn't TCP to a specific group of ports. IKE-over-TCP
>> could not solve this issue.
>
>
Hi Yoav,
I agree with your conclusion (that we should do an IKE fragment thing,
maybe based on your draft).
However, 2 comments:
1. You can never know if anything is IPR free. At best you can say that
nobody has said anything yet.
Yes, I agree. I only meant that neither I, nor my company
Hi Valery.
I agree with your conclusion (that we should do an IKE fragment thing, maybe
based on your draft).
However, 2 comments:
1. You can never know if anything is IPR free. At best you can say that nobody
has said anything yet.
2. IKE over TCP has worked for over 10 years in my company
Hi alll,
before the meeting I'd like to express some thoughts about the topic.
First, I think this is a very important problem. Untill we implemented
IKE fragmentation, many of our "road warrior" customers complained that
they couldn't use IPsec from public places, like hotels, restaraunts etc.
It's much simpler than that: I'm fine with the process, I just got my
numbers wrong (blush). May 7 is less than 2 weeks in the future.
Instead, I'd like to propose Thursday, May 16, same time. Any objections?
Thanks,
Yaron
On 2013-04-28 12:07, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Hi Yaron,
The
Hi Yaron,
The issue is that it has to be announcement by the IESG secretary 2
weeks in advance.
End of last year I suggested to simplify the rules for virtual interim
meetings but my proposal was not well received, see
http://list-archives.org/2012/12/03/ietf-ietf-org/simplifying-our-process
Hi Michael,
formally yes, we only need 2 weeks' notice for a conference call:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html
But the date is not (yet) set in stone. Let us know if you cannot attend
for any reason.
Thanks,
Yaron
On 2013-04-28 03:17, Michael Richardson wrot
On Apr 27, 2013, at 8:02 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> Dear IPsec folks,
>
> The ipsecme working group is chartered to come up with a solution for
> transporting long IKEv2 messages over networks that do not perform IP
> fragmentation correctly, and as a result drop overly long messages, usually
> "Yaron" == Yaron Sheffer writes:
Yaron> We propose to meet May 7, at 9:00am PST (16:00 UTC, 12:00 noon EST,
19:00
Yaron> Israel) for 1 hour. We will publish a bridge number a week
Yaron> before the meeting.
okay.
Is that enough notice?
I agree that the problem likely needs b
Just a reminder that the meeting is tomorrow, in about 24 hours. See/hear you
there!
At 7:53 PM -0700 9/17/09, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>At 10:03 PM +0300 9/12/09, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
>> The ipsecme WG will have a virtual interim WG meeting in about a month. We
>> will have a conference call on Tuesd
Paul Hoffman writes:
> At 10:03 PM +0300 9/12/09, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> > The ipsecme WG will have a virtual interim WG meeting in about a month. We
> > will have a conference call on Tuesday September 22, 15:00 GMT (18:00
> > Israel, 17:00 CET, 11:00 EDT, 8:00 PDT), for 2 hours. We are planning o
At 10:03 PM +0300 9/12/09, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> The ipsecme WG will have a virtual interim WG meeting in about a month. We
> will have a conference call on Tuesday September 22, 15:00 GMT (18:00
> Israel, 17:00 CET, 11:00 EDT, 8:00 PDT), for 2 hours. We are planning on
> the same format as the pr
12 matches
Mail list logo
