Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipsec-udp-encaps-05.txt

[Stephen Kent <kent@xxxxxxx>]

At 11:16 AM -0600 1/2/03, Steve Dispensa wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> Not incorrect, just dumb.  However, why again is tunnel mode not a
> 'must'?  It seems like an exception case.  No IPSEC mode is specified
> for other traffic; it just matches by policy (or not).  We have singled
> out L2TP as a particular traffic type for which compliant
> implementations need not bother supporting tunnel mode.  Seems oddly
> arbitrary, and based on an expected implementation that (for me) doesn't
> work well. 
>
>  -sd

The IPsec WG didn't specify how to use IPsec with L2TP; the L2TP WG 
did. We pointed out why we believed tunnel mode was preferable, but 
they choose to use transport mode instead, perhaps to reduce 
per-packet overhead.

Steve