Subject: Re: IP Tunneling I think ?
To: Perry E. Metzger <email@example.com>
From: Andrew Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/27/1999 03:05:17
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 05:28:13PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>Andrew Brown <email@example.com> writes:
>> it just has the distinct stigma of having microsoft's name on it.
>> if you look at who's actually writing the internet drafts for it,
>> microsoft obviously doesn't "own" the protocol. they just did it
>> wrong first.
>It actually is a horrible protocol. Running PPP over IP as a tunneling
>protocol? The idea reeks.
okay. i was not actually aware of the depths of their madness. :)
i thought they were just encapsulating (optionally) encrypted ip in
the gre packets. but the idea does not "reek". i think it's actually
a nice idea. but don't get me wrong...i dislike microsoft as much as
the other guy.
>There are far better protocols for handling this sort of thing. See IPSec.
you can wave ipsec around as much as you want, but i don't have it and
neither do you. i'm waiting for it...much the same way way i'm
waiting for dnssec. which one do you think will appear first?
>The fact that 99% of the implementations are insecure doesn't help, of
well...there is that.
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
firstname.lastname@example.org * "ah! i see you have the internet
email@example.com (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
firstname.lastname@example.org * "information is power -- share the wealth."