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

Re: Name canon/secure name service (Re: kink-09)

To: ietf-kink@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Name canon/secure name service (Re: kink-09)
From: "KAMADA Ken'ichi" <kamada@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 10:57:55 +0900
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-kink/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-kink.vpnc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-kink-request@vpnc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Sender: owner-ietf-kink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.7 (Sanjō) APEL/10.6 Emacs/22.0.50 (i386-unknown-netbsdelf3.99.7) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)

At Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:02:41 -0400,
Ken Raeburn <raeburn@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > I don't think this is a KINK/Kerberos specific matter, though.
> 
> No, it isn't.  How would a non-Kerberos IPsec deployment deal with  
> such a case?

In IKEv1 implementations for example, I believe they have the mapping
between phase1 IDs and selectors in their (local) configuration.
But I don't know how they manage about dynamic case, say road-worrier.

-- 
KAMADA Ken'ichi <kamada@xxxxxxxxxx>

References:
- kink-09
  - From: Ken Raeburn
- Name canon/secure name service (Re: kink-09)
  - From: KAMADA Ken'ichi
- Re: Name canon/secure name service (Re: kink-09)
  - From: Ken Raeburn
- Re: Name canon/secure name service (Re: kink-09)
  - From: KAMADA Ken'ichi
- Re: Name canon/secure name service (Re: kink-09)
  - From: Ken Raeburn

Prev by Date: Ticket and SA lifetime (Re: kink-09)
Previous by thread: Re: Name canon/secure name service (Re: kink-09)
Next by thread: Ticket and SA lifetime (Re: kink-09)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread