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

RE: [Ipsec] VID for nat traversal



Chris, the earlier drafts provided the vendor ID being MD5 of the draft
name. If you support multiple versions, you include multiple vendor IDs. 

>From draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-02.txt:

"the vendor id payload for this specification of NAT-Traversal (MD5 hash of
"draft-
ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-02" - ["90cb8091 3ebb696e 086381b5 ec427b1f"])"

Windows NAT-T implementation so far uses draft-02 vendor ID. Here is the
Win2k & XP NAT-T update info.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;818043

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipsec-admin@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ipsec-admin@xxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Chris Stillson
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 11:37 AM
> To: ipsec@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Ipsec] VID for nat traversal
> 
> Just wondering what different implementations use for the VID 
> to signify an implementation supports nat-t (since there is 
> no rfc # yet)
> 
> By my calculations the md5 hash of "RFC XXXX" is 
> 810fa565f8ab14369105d706fbd57279, which seems to make as much 
> sense as anything at this point. But, other people may have a 
> different solution which will make interoperability tricky :) 
> So, before releasing anything to the public, I would like to 
> get this issue sorted out.
> 
> 
> chris stillson
> IPSEC crypto monkey
> x82477
> 
> Note: Preceding comments written by an engineer. There is 
> nothing to read into them. He really has no hidden motives or agendas.
> 
> 1.Right Understanding 2.Right Thoughts 3.Right Speech 4.Right 
> Action 5.Right Livelihood 6.Right Effort 7.Right Mindfulness 
> 8.Right Concentration --Please inform author if he has 
> forgotten about any of these
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ipsec mailing list
> Ipsec@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
Ipsec mailing list
Ipsec@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec