From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun  1 10:20:30 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i51HKPsp097151;
	Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BVBKS-0002Os-Nl; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 11:37:28 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BV9gS-0001qc-Ef
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 09:52:04 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01477
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 09:52:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BV9gR-0003tW-Nw
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 09:52:03 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BV9fP-0003OW-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 09:51:01 -0400
Received: from [83.145.195.1] (helo=mail.kivinen.iki.fi)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BV9eP-0002p7-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 09:49:57 -0400
Received: from fireball.kivinen.iki.fi (localhost [IPv6:::1])
	by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i51DmSYu022126
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO);
	Tue, 1 Jun 2004 16:48:29 +0300 (EEST)
Received: (from kivinen@localhost)
	by fireball.kivinen.iki.fi (8.12.10/8.12.6/Submit) id i51DmRRe022121;
	Tue, 1 Jun 2004 16:48:27 +0300 (EEST)
X-Authentication-Warning: fireball.kivinen.iki.fi: kivinen set sender to
	kivinen@iki.fi using -f
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <16572.35115.135684.778512@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 16:48:27 +0300
From: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
To: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under Emacs 21.3.1
X-Edit-Time: 10 min
X-Total-Time: 10 min
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: tytso@mit.edu, kseo@bbn.com, byfraser@cisco.com, kent@bbn.com,
        angelos@cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [Ipsec] Comments to the draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2401bis-02.txt
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

> 4.4 Major IPsec Databases
> ...
>     Multiple Separate IPsec Contexts
> ...
>        For example, a security gateway that provides VPN service to
>        multiple customers will be able to associate each customer~Os
								   ^^^^
I assume it should be ' there instead of that "~<ctrl-h>O".

>        traffic with the correct VPN.
> ...
> 4.4.1.1  Selectors
> ...
>       * If the Next Layer Protocol uses two ports (e.g., TCP, UDP, SCTP,
>         these selectors is a list of ranges of values.  Note that the
>         Local and Remote ports may not be available in the case of
>         receipt of a fragmented packet, thus a value of OPAQUE also MUST
>         be supported.  Note: In a non-initial fragment, port values will
>         not be available. If a port selector specifies a value other than
>         ANY or OPAQUE, it cannot match packets that are non-initial
>         fragments.  If the SA requires a port value other than ANY or
>         OPAQUE, an arriving fragment without ports MUST be discarded.

This thing depends on the fragmentation handling. Support of OPAQUE
should not be mandatory, as it is only needed to support to one of the
fragmentation handling proposals, and that one is most likely going to
be MAY or SHOULD, not MUST.

I propose removing everything after ", thus a value of OPAQUE ..." and
replace it with reference to section 7.

>       * If the Next Layer Protocol is a Mobility Header, then there is a
>         selector for IPv6 Mobility Header Message Type (MH type) [Mobip].
>         This is an 8-bit value that identifies a particular mobility
>         message.  Note that the MH type may not be available in the case
>         of receipt of a fragmented packet, thus a value of OPAQUE MUST be
>         supported.

Again makeing the OPAQUE mandatory, where it might not be needed.
Propose removing everyhing after ", thus a value...".

>       * If the Next Layer Protocol value is ICMP then there is a 16-bit
>         selector for the ICMP message type and code. The message type is
>         a single 8-bit value, which defines the type of an ICMP message,
>         or ANY. The ICMP code is a single 8-bit value that defines a
>         specific subtype for an ICMP message. The message type is placed
>         in the most significant 8 bits of the 16-bit selector and the
>         code is placed in the least significant 8 bits. This 16-bit
>         selector can contain a single type and a range of codes, a single
>         type and ANY code, ANY type and ANY code. Given a policy entry
>         with a range of Types (T-start to T-end) and a range of Codes (C-
>         start to C-end), and an ICMP packet with Type t and Code c, an
>         implementation MUST test for a match using
> 
>          (T-start*256) + C-start <= (t*256) + c <= (T-end*256) + C-end
> 
>          Note that the ICMP message type and code may not be available in
>          the case of receipt of a fragmented packet, thus a value of
>          OPAQUE MUST be supported.

Same here.

> ...
> 4.4.1.2  Structure of an SPD entry
> ...
>     management interface with the SPD selector "Name".)  If the reserved,
>     symbolic selector value OPAQUE or ANY is employed for a given
>     selector type, only it may appear in the list for that selector, and
>     it must appear only once in the list for that selector.  Note that
>     ANY and OPAQUE are local syntax conventions -D IKEv2 negotiates these
						  ^^^^
Again wierd characters there again...

> ...
> 4.4.2 Security Association Database (SAD)
> ...
>     If the protocol is one that has two ports then there will be
>     selectors for both Local and Remote ports.
> 
>                                       Value in
>                                       Triggering   Resulting SAD
>        Selector  SPD Entry        PFP Packet       Entry
>        --------  ---------------- --- ------------ --------------
>        loc port  list of ranges    0  src port "s" list of ranges
>                      or ANY                            or ANY
>                  list of ranges    0  no src port  discard packet
>                      or ANY
						     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This again depends on the fragmentation processing. 

>                  OPAQUE            0  not avail.   OPAQUE
>                  OPAQUE            1  not avail.   ***
>                  list of ranges    1  src port "s" "s"
>                      or ANY
>                  list of ranges    1  no src port  discard packet
>                      or ANY
> 
>        rem port  list of ranges    0  dst port "d" list of ranges
>                      or ANY                            or ANY
>                  list of ranges    0  no dst port  discard packet
>                      or ANY

Same here.

>                  OPAQUE            0  not avail.   OPAQUE
>                  OPAQUE            1  not avail.   ***
>                  list of ranges    1  dst port "d" "d"
>                      or ANY
>                  list of ranges    1  no dst port  discard packet
>                      or ANY
> 
>     If the protocol is mobility header then there will be a selector for
>     mh type.
> 
>                                       Value in
>                                       Triggering   Resulting SAD
>        Selector  SPD Entry        PFP Packet       Entry
>        --------  ---------------- --- ------------ --------------
>        mh type   list of ranges    0  mh type "T"  list of ranges
>                      or ANY                            or ANY
>                  list of ranges    0  no mh type   discard packet
>                      or ANY

Same here.

>                  OPAQUE            0  not avail.   OPAQUE
>                  OPAQUE            1  not avail.   ***
>                  list of ranges    1  mh type "T"  "T"
>                      or ANY
>                  list of ranges    1  no mh type   discard packet
>                      or ANY

and here. Hmm, I assume also in the ICMP case.

> ...
> 4.5.2 Automated SA and Key Management
> ...
>     The default automated key management protocol selected for use with
>     IPsec is IKEv2 [Kau04].  Other automated SA management protocols MAY
>     be employed.

We should add comment about IKEv1 too. Something like saying that this
document assumes some things from key management protocol which cannot
be done in IKEv1 (ranges, new notifications etc), but limited support
of this document can also be done using IKEv1 for compatibility
reasons.

> ...
> 4.5.3 Locating a Security Gateway
> 
>     This section discusses issues relating to how a host learns about the
>     existence of relevant security gateways and once a host has contacted
>     these security gateways, how it knows that these are the correct
>     security gateways. The details of where the required information is
>     stored is a local matter, but the Peer Authorization Database
>     described in Section 4.4 is the most likely candidate.
> 
>     Consider a situation in which a remote host (H1) is using the

I propose changing H1 to SH1, meaning it is Security Host, and it
knows about IPsec. I had long misunderstandings with people
reading NAT-T drafts as they didn't understand that the HOST A was
talking IPsec, not the NAT box. Using S* prefix for each hosts talking
ipsec cleared up things... So have SH1, SG2, H2 here...

> ...
> 5.1 Outbound IP Traffic Processing (protected-to-unprotected)
> ...
>     NOTE: With the exception of IPv4 and IPv6 transport mode, an SG,
>     BITS, or BITW implementation MAY fragment packets before applying
>     IPsec.  The device SHOULD have a configuration setting to disable
>     this.  The resulting fragments are evaluated against the SPD in the
>     normal manner.  Thus, fragments not containing port numbers (or ICMP
>     message type and code, or Mobility Header type) will only match rules
>     having port (or ICMP message type and code, or MH type) selectors of
>     OPAQUE or ANY. (See section 7 for more details.)

This is wrong if you are using approach #3. I propose remove
everything from the "Thus, fragments not containing port numbers ..."
to the end of paragraph, and simply add "See section 7 for more
information about fragmentation processing." 

> ...
> 5.2 Processing Inbound IP Traffic (unprotected-to-protected)
> ...
>     2. The packet is examined and demuxed into one of three categories:
>         - If the packet appears to be IPsec protected and it is addressed
>           to this device, an attempt is made to map it to an active SA
>           via the SAD.
>         - Traffic not addressed to this device, or addressed to this
>           device and not AH, ESP, or ICMP, is directed to BYPASS/DISCARD
>           lookup. (IKE traffic MUST have an explicit BYPASS entry in the
>           SPD.) If multiple SPDs are employed, the tag assigned to the
>           packet in step 1 is used to select the appropriate SPD-I (and
>           cache) to search.
>         - ICMP traffic directed to this device is directed to
>           "unprotected" ICMP processing (see Section 6).

We are still missing section 6.... Also there seems to be two ways of
making references, which one is correct "(See Section 6)" above or "[See
Section 6.]" below.

>     3c. Unprotected ICMP processing is assumed to take place on the
>        unprotected side of the IPsec boundary. Unprotected ICMP messages
>        are examined and local policy is applied to determine whether to
>        accept or reject these messages and, if accepted, what action to
>        take as a result. For example, if an ICMP unreachable message is
>        received, the implementation must decide whether to act on it,
>        reject it, or act on it with constraints. [See Section 6.]
						   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There.

> ...
>        If an IPsec system receives an inbound packet on an SA and the
>        packet's header fields are not consistent with the selectors for
>        the SA, it MUST discard the packet. This is an auditable event.
>        The audit log entry for this event SHOULD include the current
>        date/time, SPI, IPsec protocol(s), source and destination of the
>        packet, and any other selector values of the packet that are
>        available, and the selector values from the relevant SAD entry.
>        The system SHOULD also be capable of generating and sending an IKE
>        notification to the sender (IPsec peer), indicating that the
>        received packet was discarded because of failure to pass selector
>        checks.
> 
>                IKEv2 NOTIFY MESSAGES - ERROR TYPES        Value
>                -----------------------------------        -----
>                INVALID_SELECTORS                          iana-tbd
> 
>                This error indication MAY be sent in an IKE INFORMATIONAL
>                exchange when a node receives an ESP or AH packet whose
>                selectors do not match those of the SA on which it was
>                delivered (and which caused the packet to be discarded).
>                The Notification Data contains the start of the offending
>                packet (as in ICMP messages) and the SPI field of the
>                notification is set to match the SPI of the IPsec SA.

This is not the correct document to define IKEv2 notifications. That
text describing the notification is already in the
draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14, so I propose we remove that description of
notification (from IKEv2 NOTIFY MESSAGES - ERROR TYPES to the end of
description), and instead change the text:

       "The system SHOULD also be capable of generating and sending an
        IKE notification of INVALID_SELECTORS to the sender (IPsec
        peer), indicating that the received packet was discarded
        because of failure to pass selector checks."

> ...
> 6. ICMP Processing
> 
>     [This section will be filled in when IPsec issue # 91 is resolved.]

This section is really needed ASAP. At least we need to have the PMTU
processing back, perhaps as separate subsection. 

> 7. Handling Fragments (on the protected side of the IPsec boundary)
> ...
>     1. All implementations MUST support tunnel mode SAs that are

Move each approach to separate subsection for easier reference.

> ...
>     3. An implementation MAY/SHOULD support some form of stateful
>     fragment checking for a tunnel mode SA with non-trivial port (or ICMP
>     type/code or MH type) field values (not ANY or OPAQUE).
>     Implementations that will transmit non-initial fragments on a tunnel
>     mode SA that makes use of non-trivial port (or ICMP type/code or MH
>     type) selectors MUST notify a peer via the IKE NOTIFY payload:
> 
>             IKEv2 NOTIFY MESSAGES - ERROR TYPES        Value
>             -----------------------------------        -----
>             NON FIRST FRAGMENTS ALSO                   iana-tbd

Again, no need to define this here, simply give the notify name to be
used. The IKEv2 already defines the number. So remove from the "IKEv2
NOTIFY MESSAGES " to the "iana-tbd", and modify "via the IKE NOTIFY
payload:" to "via the IKE NON_FIRST_FRAGMENTS_ALSO NOTIFY payload.".

>     may fail. Also note that stateful fragment checking may create DoS
>     opportunities that may be exploitable by hosts on a protected network
>     behind a security gateway.

Fragments in general create DoS opportunities. In #1 and #2 there are
opportunities to attack the hosts behind the SGW, in #3 the attack
might be on the SGW, but in that case the attack will only affect the
other fragments, not normal non-fragmented traffic (unless the SGW
implementation is completely broken, and it does not put any limits to
the number of partial fragments it stores).

I do not think this kind of comments gives out any useful information,
and seeing my feedback for the UDP-encapsulation draft, I think the
IESG will want us to explain all possible attacks which might be
exploitable in the SGW because of fragments. This list would of course
be subset of attacks that can be done to any host.

I propose removing that text unless you want to write document
describing all possible fragmentation attacks and put reference to it
here.

>     An implementation MAY/SHOULD choose to support stateful fragment
>     checking for BYPASS/DISCARD traffic for a tunnel mode SA with non-
>     trivial port field values (not ANY or OPAQUE) (Approach 3
>     above).

I think we should have text here describing attack of plain text
non-first framgnets. If the recipient is accepting any plain text
packets, it MUST do stateful fragment checking of the BYPASS'ed
non-first fragments. This is regardless of the approach it is using.

I.e. if the recipient have policy that only port 25 (telnet) is
encrypted and authenticated and everything else is bypassed in clear,
then attacker who can see non-first fragment of the packet in the SA
(from SPI for #2, or from the length or similar for #3), can remove
that, and replace it with clear text packet sent to the recipient SGW.
If SGW does not do stateful inspection of the non-first
non-authenticated packet before it BYPASSes it forward the attacker
can now modify the data in the connection. If the SGW DISCARDs the
packet then it really does not care whether it did stateful inspection
or not (i.e. SGW can discard all clear text non-first fragments if it
wants to), but for BYPASS the check is MANDATORY.

I think we need some text there describing that attack, and also
saying that it is MUST to do steteful fragment checking in case of
non authenticated non-first fragments is ever BYPASSed. 

>     An
>     implementation also MUST permit a user or administrator to accept or
>     reject BYPASS/DISCARD traffic using the SPD conventions described in
>     approaches 1 and 2 above.

I do not really understand what the above text is trying to say? 

> ...
> 11. Differences from RFC 2401
> 
>     [This section will be further updated when things have settled down.
>     Issue numbers, status, rejected items, and "proposed changes", etc.
>     will be removed in final version. Only the text describing the
>     differences from 2401 will remain.]

There are lots of states which are now closed instead of pending or
accepted etc. Those could be fixed, or perhaps this could be already
modified to the final format, i.e. remove the issue numbers etc, and
leave only the text describing the changes. 

> ...
> Appendix E -- Fragment Handling Rationale
> 
>     [Will be added in next draft -- based on write up Steve distributed
>     on the list plus subsequent discussion.]

This is missing, perhaps it should be added now, when are closing on
the resolution of the fragmentation issue. 
-- 
kivinen@safenet-inc.com

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun  1 13:42:59 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i51Kgu1S016266;
	Tue, 1 Jun 2004 13:42:56 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BVFkc-0002aX-Bl; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:20:46 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVCNT-0003mI-A0
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 12:44:39 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23516
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:44:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVCNS-0000ML-3y
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 12:44:38 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BVCIU-0006cG-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 12:39:31 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72]
	helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BVCCE-0004qM-01
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 12:33:02 -0400
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (171.71.177.238)
	by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Jun 2004 09:33:30 +0000
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from [171.71.119.150] (dhcp-171-71-119-150.cisco.com
	[171.71.119.150])
	by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i51GWkls025602;
	Tue, 1 Jun 2004 09:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <3D6538A5-B3E9-11D8-968B-000A95E07B78@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Barbara Fraser <byfraser@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 09:32:14 -0700
To: housley@vigilsec.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org, angelos@cs.columbia.edu,
        Barbara Fraser <byfraser@cisco.com>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, kivinen@iki.fi
Subject: [Ipsec] Confirmation that IKEv2 is ready
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Russ,

Just an FYI that we believe Charlie's latest document addresses all the 
outstanding issues from IETF last call and is ready for advancement.

thanks,
Barb and Ted


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun  1 22:09:52 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5259pjD012554;
	Tue, 1 Jun 2004 22:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BVN6u-0004P5-8R; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:12:16 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVH7H-0004yf-V7
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:48:15 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27370
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 17:48:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVH7G-0007cc-Gb
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:48:14 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BVH6K-00079M-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:47:17 -0400
Received: from ip-66-80-10-146.dsl.sca.megapath.net ([66.80.10.146]
	helo=intotoinc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BVH5U-0006h1-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:46:24 -0400
Received: from vamshi.intotoinc.com ([10.1.5.61])
	by intotoinc.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id i51Ln3Y6009009;
	Tue, 1 Jun 2004 14:49:03 -0700
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20040601142755.0331cf58@10.1.5.10>
X-Sender: vamsi@10.1.5.10
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 14:42:53 -0700
To: ipsec@ietf.org
From: vamsi <vamsi@intotoinc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: [Ipsec] IKEv2 and EAP-SIM 
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Hi All,

In section 2.16 of IKEv2 draft states that, when EAP is used, initiator MUST
     authenticate the server using public key signatures. Some EAP methods 
provide
     mutual authentication. Should n't  this requirement be relaxed to 
support EAP methods
     such as EAP-SIM?  I would prefer the statement such as, if EAP method 
does not
     support mutual authentication, then the initiator MUST authenticate 
the responder
     using public key signatures.



Thanks
Vamsi
CTO Office
Intoto Inc.
www.intoto.com


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun  1 22:09:56 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5259tIB012603;
	Tue, 1 Jun 2004 22:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BVN6v-0004Sa-IG; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:12:17 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVH7J-00051L-Ox
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:48:17 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27377
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 17:48:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVH7I-0007ck-CN
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:48:16 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BVH6L-00079c-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:47:18 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BVH5b-0006hA-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:46:31 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i51Lijr07378
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 17:44:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i51LhsDS011216
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 17:43:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ip-66-80-10-146.dsl.sca.megapath.net(66.80.10.146) by
	nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAA_waq5v; Tue, 1 Jun 04 17:43:53 -0400
Received: from vamshi.intotoinc.com ([10.1.5.61])
	by intotoinc.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id i51Ln3Y6009009;
	Tue, 1 Jun 2004 14:49:03 -0700
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20040601142755.0331cf58@10.1.5.10>
X-Sender: vamsi@10.1.5.10
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 14:42:53 -0700
To: ipsec@ietf.org
From: vamsi <vamsi@intotoinc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: [Ipsec] IKEv2 and EAP-SIM 
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Hi All,

In section 2.16 of IKEv2 draft states that, when EAP is used, initiator MUST
     authenticate the server using public key signatures. Some EAP methods 
provide
     mutual authentication. Should n't  this requirement be relaxed to 
support EAP methods
     such as EAP-SIM?  I would prefer the statement such as, if EAP method 
does not
     support mutual authentication, then the initiator MUST authenticate 
the responder
     using public key signatures.



Thanks
Vamsi
CTO Office
Intoto Inc.
www.intoto.com


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun  2 01:00:44 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5280gUx098365;
	Wed, 2 Jun 2004 01:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BVQ5H-0008Dw-IY; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 03:22:47 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVPr5-0001Ov-AL
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 03:08:07 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA03851
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 03:07:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVPqw-0003LS-6B
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 03:07:58 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BVPoq-0002MB-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 03:05:49 -0400
Received: from michael.checkpoint.com ([194.29.32.68])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BVPo1-0001cM-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 03:04:57 -0400
Received: from [194.29.46.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by michael.checkpoint.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
	i5274Pr15245; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:04:25 +0300 (IDT)
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040601142755.0331cf58@10.1.5.10>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040601142755.0331cf58@10.1.5.10>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <141B2418-B463-11D8-B984-000A95834BAA@checkpoint.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] IKEv2 and EAP-SIM 
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:04:23 +0300
To: vamsi <vamsi@intotoinc.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

See this draft:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eronen-ipsec-ikev2-eap-auth 
-01.txt   "Extension for EAP Authentication in IKEv2"


On Jun 2, 2004, at 12:42 AM, vamsi wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> In section 2.16 of IKEv2 draft states that, when EAP is used,  
> initiator MUST
>     authenticate the server using public key signatures. Some EAP  
> methods provide
>     mutual authentication. Should n't  this requirement be relaxed to  
> support EAP methods
>     such as EAP-SIM?  I would prefer the statement such as, if EAP  
> method does not
>     support mutual authentication, then the initiator MUST  
> authenticate the responder
>     using public key signatures.
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Vamsi
> CTO Office
> Intoto Inc.
> www.intoto.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipsec mailing list
> Ipsec@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun  2 01:01:25 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5281O6d098766;
	Wed, 2 Jun 2004 01:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BVQ5I-0008Fl-Qs; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 03:22:48 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVPr6-0001P4-5W
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 03:08:08 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA03857
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 03:08:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVPqz-0003M3-7a
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 03:08:01 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BVPox-0002N3-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 03:05:56 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BVPo7-0001rn-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 03:05:03 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5273Hr14621
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 03:03:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5272T8f026812
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 03:02:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from michael.checkpoint.com(194.29.32.68) by nutshell.tislabs.com
	via csmap (V6.0) id srcAAAFGaqw0; Wed, 2 Jun 04 03:02:27 -0400
Received: from [194.29.46.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by michael.checkpoint.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
	i5274Pr15245; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:04:25 +0300 (IDT)
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040601142755.0331cf58@10.1.5.10>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040601142755.0331cf58@10.1.5.10>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <141B2418-B463-11D8-B984-000A95834BAA@checkpoint.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] IKEv2 and EAP-SIM 
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:04:23 +0300
To: vamsi <vamsi@intotoinc.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

See this draft:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eronen-ipsec-ikev2-eap-auth 
-01.txt   "Extension for EAP Authentication in IKEv2"


On Jun 2, 2004, at 12:42 AM, vamsi wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> In section 2.16 of IKEv2 draft states that, when EAP is used,  
> initiator MUST
>     authenticate the server using public key signatures. Some EAP  
> methods provide
>     mutual authentication. Should n't  this requirement be relaxed to  
> support EAP methods
>     such as EAP-SIM?  I would prefer the statement such as, if EAP  
> method does not
>     support mutual authentication, then the initiator MUST  
> authenticate the responder
>     using public key signatures.
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Vamsi
> CTO Office
> Intoto Inc.
> www.intoto.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipsec mailing list
> Ipsec@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun  2 06:27:20 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i52DRIeB092527;
	Wed, 2 Jun 2004 06:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BVVh4-0005J0-3a; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:22:10 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVSsn-0005OM-3Y
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 06:22:05 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA12721
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 06:21:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVSsV-0000LB-Ht
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 06:21:47 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BVSqo-0007Em-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 06:20:03 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BVSpc-0006co-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 06:18:48 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i52AH3r14383
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 06:17:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i52AGEEV025916
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 06:16:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fwdoc.estig.ipb.pt(193.136.195.3) by nutshell.tislabs.com via
	csmap (V6.0) id srcAAA1naWLY; Wed, 2 Jun 04 06:16:10 -0400
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:24:30 +0000
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Kivinen" <kivinen@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <mgeoiutzysuddwujaso@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------whsbovcktktyfuvbtowo"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Encrypted document
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------whsbovcktktyfuvbtowo
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
 

<br>
</body></html>

----------whsbovcktktyfuvbtowo
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="Counter_strike.com.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="Counter_strike.com.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: Counter_strike.com<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------whsbovcktktyfuvbtowo
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------whsbovcktktyfuvbtowo--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun  2 15:25:32 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i52MPVj1000524;
	Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BVaFi-0001ob-7e; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:14:14 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVXfC-0000Xw-Ld
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:28:22 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28188
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 11:28:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVXf8-0001ja-HC
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:28:18 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BVXeI-0001CD-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:27:27 -0400
Received: from haydn.cti.depaul.edu ([140.192.32.26])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BVXdF-0000dY-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:26:21 -0400
Received: from ESSENTIAL ([68.78.136.109]) by haydn.cti.depaul.edu with
	Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:26:21 -0500
Message-ID: <001201c448b5$f51c2780$240110ac@ESSENTIAL>
From: "Hazem Hamed" <hhamed@cs.depaul.edu>
To: <ipsec@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:26:20 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jun 2004 15:26:21.0320 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[F5322080:01C448B5]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE 
	autolearn=no version=2.60
Subject: [Ipsec] IPSec Outbound Packet Processing Questions
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1358715164=="
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--===============1358715164==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01C4488C.0C16AB10"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C4488C.0C16AB10
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Everybody,

I am a PhD student in DePaul University, Chicago doing research in =
IPSec. I need clarification about the operation of SPD lookup for =
outbound packets.

First question, it's not clear how an SA bundle is formed, and if all =
SAs in the bundle get the same SPI. Is it constructed by matching an =
outbound packet against multiple SPD rules each pointing to one =
transform, or matching the packet against one rule that points to =
multipe transforms?

Second question is about outbound packet matching. Can a packet match =
multiple SPD rules? If yes, how are these rules applied to the packet in =
such a case?=20

Any cooperation is highly appreciated.

-Hazem
------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C4488C.0C16AB10
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>Hi Everybody,<BR><BR>I am a PhD student in DePaul University, =
Chicago doing=20
research in IPSec.&nbsp;I need&nbsp;clarification about the operation of =
SPD=20
lookup for outbound packets.<BR><BR>First question, it's not clear how =
an SA=20
bundle is formed, and if all SAs in the bundle get the same SPI. Is it=20
constructed by matching an outbound packet against multiple SPD rules =
each=20
pointing to one transform, or matching the packet against one rule that =
points=20
to multipe transforms?<BR><BR>Second question is about outbound packet =
matching.=20
Can a packet match multiple SPD rules? If yes, how are these rules =
applied to=20
the packet in such a case? </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Any cooperation is highly=20
appreciated.<BR><BR>-Hazem</DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C4488C.0C16AB10--



--===============1358715164==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============1358715164==--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun  2 16:01:54 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i52N1qO4007669;
	Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BVaIz-0002tN-NT; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:17:37 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVYjh-0007nv-MI
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 12:37:05 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01801
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 12:37:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVYjg-0004sc-ME
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 12:37:04 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BVYis-0004Qa-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 12:36:14 -0400
Received: from auemail2.lucent.com ([192.11.223.163]
	helo=auemail2.firewall.lucent.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BVYiD-0003jZ-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 12:35:34 -0400
Received: from nwmail.wh.lucent.com (h135-5-40-100.lucent.com [135.5.40.100])
	by auemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with
	ESMTP id i52GYvi14500
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 11:34:58 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by nwmail.wh.lucent.com (8.11.7p1+Sun/EMS-1.5 sol2)
	id i52GYvj21737; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 12:34:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lucent.com by nwmail.wh.lucent.com (8.11.7p1+Sun/EMS-1.5 sol2)
	id i52GYsk21720; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 12:34:55 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <40BE014F.3050200@lucent.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 12:33:19 -0400
From: Uri Blumenthal <uri@lucent.com>
Organization: Lucent Technologies / Bell Labs
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
	rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (CK-LucentTPES)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, ru
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vamsi <vamsi@intotoinc.com>
Original-CC: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] IKEv2 and EAP-SIM
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040601142755.0331cf58@10.1.5.10>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

On 6/1/2004 17:42, vamsi wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> In section 2.16 of IKEv2 draft states that, when EAP is used, initiator MUST
> authenticate the server using public key signatures. Some EAP methods 
> provide mutual authentication. Should not  this requirement be relaxed to 
> support EAP methods such as EAP-SIM? 

It is an open question whether EAP-SIM offers a reliable mutual authentication.
Thus I'd be against relaxing this requirement for a method such as EAP-SIM.

> I would prefer the statement such as, if EAP method does not
> support mutual authentication, then the initiator MUST authenticate 
> the responder using public key signatures.

In general, I'm ambivalent on this. But since not EAP methods offer equal
strength, perhaps it's best to leave as is...


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun  2 21:22:45 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i534MiIF054821;
	Wed, 2 Jun 2004 21:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BViS9-00067G-EV; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 22:59:37 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BVc6P-00074e-Rn; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 16:12:45 -0400
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16374;
	Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:12:28 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200406022012.QAA16374@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart"
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 16:12:28 -0400
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: [Ipsec] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

--NextPart

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Security Protocol Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol
	Author(s)	: C. Kaufman
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt
	Pages		: 106
	Date		: 2004-6-2
	
This document describes version 2 of the Internet Key Exchange (IKE)
protocol.  IKE is a component of IPsec used for performing mutual
authentication and establishing and maintaining security
associations.
This version of the IKE specification combines the contents of what
were previously separate documents, including ISAKMP (RFC 2408), IKE
(RFC 2409), the Internet DOI (RFC 2407), NAT Traversal, Legacy
authentication, and remote address acquisition.
Version 2 of IKE does not interoperate with version 1, but it has
enough of the header format in common that both versions can
unambiguously run over the same UDP port.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.  
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.


Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt


Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	mailserv@ietf.org.
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.
		
		
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

--NextPart
Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess"

--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server";
	server="mailserv@ietf.org"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2004-6-2162855.I-D@ietf.org>

ENCODING mime
FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt

--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14.txt";
	site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp";
	directory="internet-drafts"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2004-6-2162855.I-D@ietf.org>


--OtherAccess--

--NextPart
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--NextPart--




From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun  2 23:21:37 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i536Latk007971;
	Wed, 2 Jun 2004 23:21:36 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BViSr-0006Jq-Ef; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 23:00:21 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVcST-0003je-6g
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 16:35:33 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18064
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:35:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVcSR-0002Qf-It
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 16:35:31 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BVcPq-0001MJ-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 16:32:50 -0400
Received: from thunk.org ([140.239.227.29] helo=thunker.thunk.org)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BVcOF-0000l1-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 16:31:11 -0400
Received: from p137.n-slpop03.stsn.com ([12.168.98.137] helo=thunk.org)
	authenticated as tytso by thunker.thunk.org with asmtp 
	(tls_cipher TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)  (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1BVcOF-0006ho-00; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 16:31:11 -0400
Received: from tytso by thunk.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1BVaoD-0001ap-RK; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:49:53 -0400
To: ipsec@ietf.org
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Phone: (781) 391-3464
Message-Id: <E1BVaoD-0001ap-RK@thunk.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:49:53 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=UPPERCASE_25_50 autolearn=no 
	version=2.60
Subject: [Ipsec] Results of the Straw Poll re: Fragmentation handling
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org


The results of the straw poll indicated that out of 16 responses,
roughly twice as many contributors (11) preferred that Methods #2 and #3
be a MAY implement, over thouse who preferred that at least one of
Methods #2 and #3 be a SHOULD or a MUST (5).

There was also a somewhat surprising number (albeit a minority)
who registered a strong dislike of Method #2 --- four or five
respondents indicated that they thought Method #2 should be a MUST NOT.

Hence, it seems that we have a rough consensus within the working group
that both Method #2 and #3 should both be MAY.  To accomodate those who
dislike Method #2, I would propose that if we can get someone from that
camp to write a paragraph detailing their objections to mixing
non-initial fragments when initial fragments are not mixed, it would
seem to me reasonable to record the minority dissent in the architecture
specification.

						- Ted


Yoav Nir
	1.  MAY / MAY
	2.  MAY
	3.  MAY

Tero Kivnen
	1.  SHOULD/MUST
	2.  MAY
	3.  SHOULD

Scott G. Kelly
	1.  SHOULD/MUST (for 3 only)
	2.  MUST NOT
	3.  SHOULD

Michael Roe
	1.  MAY / MAY
	2.  MAY
	3.  MAY

Yougui Cheng
	1.  MAY / MAY
	2.  SHOULD NOT
	3.  MAY

Mark Duffy
	1.  MAY / MAY
	2.  MAY
	3.  MAY

Niklas Hallqvist
	1.  MAY / MAY
	2.  MAY
	3.  MAY

Srini
	1.  SHOULD / MUST
	2.  MAY
	3.  SHOULD

Satoshi Inoue
	1.  MAY /  MAY
	2.  MAY
	3.  MAY

Valery Smyslov
	1.  SHOULD / MUST
	2.  MAY
	3.  SHOULD

Paul Hoffman
	1.  MAY / MAY
	2.  MAY
	3.  MAY

Bora Akyol
	1.  MAY  / MAY
	2.  MAY
	3.  MAY

Joe Tardo
	1.  SHOULD / MUST (3 should be MUST)
	2.  MAY
	3.  SHOULD

Markku Savela
	1.  MAY / MAY
	2.  MUST NOT
	3.  MAY


Mika Joutsenvirta
	1.  MAY / MAY
	2.  MAY
	3.  MAY

Joe Touch
	1.  MAY / MAY (2 MUST NOT)
	2.  MUST NOT
	3.  MAY



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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun  2 23:38:47 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i536ckSp015944;
	Wed, 2 Jun 2004 23:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BViSw-0006N0-Mb; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 23:00:26 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVcja-0007j2-0w
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 16:53:14 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19514
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:53:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVcjY-00025Q-NP
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 16:53:12 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BVciV-0001e6-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 16:52:08 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BVchT-00017B-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 16:51:03 -0400
Received: from 192.94.214.101 (zqmfozuo@[221.124.185.104])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i52KnFr03273
	for <ipsec@portal.gw.tislabs.com>; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:49:15 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Info: 42ZMZ9MWycaw8prODxbvCZ90W605hgCvAYZ38
Received: from v-79-56-8-39.TDGJUL86.ipsec@portal.gw.tislabs.com
	([211.48.91.196]) by ypzx7606-tct33.ipsec@portal.gw.tislabs.com
	with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.5193.3084); 
	Sat, 03 Jul 2004 13:52:39 -0700
Message-ID: <9664894052.86738@ipsec@portal.gw.tislabs.com>
X-Originating-IP: [12.249.158.0]
X-Originating-Email: [ipsec@portal.gw.tislabs.com]
X-Sender: ipsec@portal.gw.tislabs.com
From: "Garrett Goddard" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@portal.tislabs.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 00:53:39 +0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.5 required=5.0 tests=BIZ_TLD,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG,MIME_HTML_ONLY,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] hiIpsec
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Garrett Goddard <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1950704308=="
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

--===============1950704308==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="--9349838082743191"

----9349838082743191
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-3919-0"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

Ipsec,

Loads of cool soft at incredibly low prices<br>
<b>Windows XP Professional + Office XP Professional </b>for as low as $80<br>
<a href="http://ltfq.NANNEH.biz/OE017/?affiliate_id=233519&campaign_id=601">Order here</a><br>
The stock is limited <br>
The offer is valid till May, 30<br><br>
Hurry!<br>









----9349838082743191--


--===============1950704308==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============1950704308==--


From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun  3 03:50:54 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i53AorFv021992;
	Thu, 3 Jun 2004 03:50:53 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BVpWN-0007F5-VX; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 06:32:27 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVl92-0003xd-Ay
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:52:04 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA26425
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 01:51:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVl8l-0002i1-9u
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:51:47 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BVl6M-0001lp-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:49:20 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BVl4Q-0000qy-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:47:19 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i535jXr05868
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 01:45:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i535iiLj006242
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 01:44:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from unknown(69.111.120.204) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAutaykm; Thu, 3 Jun 04 01:44:42 -0400
Message-ID: <098301c4492e$e1a1eaf6$7c30a37b@none-uauyqc2lib>
From: "Audrey Mickelson" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
To: <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 22:47:14 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: PHP
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_60_70, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_02, 
	HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TITLE_EMPTY,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Get Tylenol three cheap
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1329219932=="
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

--===============1329219932==
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"

<HTML><title></title><body>
<a href="http://stakimo.com/33/2/index.php?ai=7406&com=30">Buy here.</a><br><br>
<a href="http://stakimo.com/33/2/index.php?ai=7406&com=30"><img src="http://stakimo.com/0/14/14-1.jpg"></a>
<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>I was wondering how you was? I was wondering how you was? I was wondering how you was? <br><br><br><br><br><br><a href="http://stakimo.com/unsub/">no more of these</a></body></html>


--===============1329219932==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============1329219932==--

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun  3 08:11:10 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i53FB7OI073777;
	Thu, 3 Jun 2004 08:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BVt9G-0005wo-8T; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 10:24:50 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVs50-0003TU-JU
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 09:16:22 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA08267
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 09:16:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVs4z-0005ME-F4
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 09:16:21 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BVs3t-0004uc-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 09:15:14 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BVs2Z-0004Ta-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 09:13:51 -0400
Received: from cm203-168-174-109.hkcable.com.hk
	(cm203-168-174-109.hkcable.com.hk [203.168.174.109])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i53DC0r04066
	for <ipsec@portal.gw.tislabs.com>; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 09:12:01 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Info: 4wFEuN45HdN4I8VOzFKxelyslBmXe62U
Received: from sadden.apostolic.com ([184.110.61.90]) by pg4-k74.hotmail.com
	with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); 
	Sat, 05 Jun 2004 06:56:04 -0600
Received: from cupful.bipartisan.com (commandeer.richter.com [181.92.142.140])
	by germanic.leggy.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i7CGLhWB750275
	for <ipsec@portal.gw.tislabs.com>;
	Sat, 05 Jun 2004 17:52:04 +0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from ipsec@portal.gw.tislabs.com)
Received: from QB655424397114 (modemcable527.236-599-93.pd.videotron.ca
	[145.184.184.110]) (authenticated bits=0)
	by parameter.ganglion.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n9DRS1yg077222
	for <ipsec@portal.gw.tislabs.com>; Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:52:04 +0300 (EST)
	(envelope-from ipsec@portal.gw.tislabs.com)
Message-ID: <081713i9pvn6$pu9w5u87$9139f0o4@JS074123566793>
From: "Warren Field" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
To: <Ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 17:52:04 +0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.7 required=5.0 tests=BIZ_TLD, ROUND_THE_WORLD_LOCAL 
	autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Hi Ipsec
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2094402385=="
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

--===============2094402385==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="--472539636407692473"

----472539636407692473
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

Ipsec,'

:247%-Online Doctorz!
up to 70% of the best pain killers out!
_Soma_vioxx_viagraaa_Fioriceet-Phentremine
and other popular meds.*valium_XXanax_Cialis$

http://www.527.ranking299pill.biz/b12

--
ecology don declarator authoritarian vagary ancestry balance dissociate regressive lieutenant decompression decontrolled fatigue vivify bivouac kwashiorkor dendritic doyle 








----472539636407692473--



--===============2094402385==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============2094402385==--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun  3 08:21:09 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i53FL7AN075893;
	Thu, 3 Jun 2004 08:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BVtDb-0006bY-7Q; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 10:29:19 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVs5N-0003c1-Cc
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 09:16:45 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA08299
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 09:16:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVs5M-0005Qv-Ny
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 09:16:44 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BVs4B-0004wg-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 09:15:32 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BVs2q-0004Tj-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 09:14:08 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i53DCGr04127
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 09:12:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i53DBUZm013588
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 09:11:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from unknown(218.190.87.57) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAnPaqFA; Thu, 3 Jun 04 09:11:27 -0400
X-Message-Info: QJVIvYC16dTzqIVLo87n4II9QJPudHXg
Received: from lzctnmu64.worldnet.att.net ([254.94.152.152]) by
	yx2-b83.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); 
	Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:56:15 +0300
Received: from lingerieumbilicusamiyq22 (stomach[204.116.72.142])
	by worldnet.att.net (itvcpau87) with SMTP
	id <85244745228106269555jro0j> (Authid: MiltonGross);
	Sat, 05 Jun 2004 14:56:15 +0200
From: "Mickey Bergeron" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
To: "'Ipsec'" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 14:53:15 +0200
Message-ID: <028749n5gx78$1j9c1904$81j9fxdl@allisbusinessmentransshippedkx06>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.5 required=5.0 tests=BIZ_TLD, SUB_HELLO autolearn=no 
	version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Hello Ipsec
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0992686856=="
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

--===============0992686856==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="--85413514983773607"

----85413514983773607
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

Ipsec,#

+247!-Online Doctorz!
up to 70% of the best pain killers out!
_Soma_vioxx_viagraaa_Fioriceet-Phentremine
and other popular meds.%valium_XXanax_Cialis:

http://www.370.ranking299pill.biz/b12

--
crouch receive loss ensemble flatulent bled bobby cajole enjoinder deepen fairfax shockley explore acquisition defocus row kensington downturn adverse immutable cottage mudguard ova blaze society irrecoverable contraceptive everyone granite canto caveman deferral agway decompression change 








----85413514983773607--



--===============0992686856==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============0992686856==--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun  3 11:11:04 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i53IB1si014653;
	Thu, 3 Jun 2004 11:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BVw6S-0004Fa-34; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 13:34:08 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVtr8-0007Al-0A
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:10:10 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18787
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 11:10:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVtr3-0000Ku-5D
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:10:05 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BVton-0007DU-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:07:45 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BVtmN-0006J1-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:05:15 -0400
Received: from OEMCOMPUTER ([218.190.132.238])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i53F3Or21063
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 11:03:25 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Info: 16TZ09FLbglwk682dJUwKGN18ROY845hxsVILnVX9
Received: from 132.80.132.154 by
	glandular83-ky527.repairman514.ipsec@lists.tislabs.com with DAV;
	Sat, 05 Jun 2004 12:09:31 -0300
Message-ID: <64891023971031.77991@ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
X-Originating-IP: [185.16.24.227]
X-Originating-Email: [ipsec@lists.tislabs.com]
X-Sender: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
From: "Kenton Sloan" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:13:31 +0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_60_70, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_02, 
	HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_HTML_ONLY, MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI autolearn=no 
	version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] 470807
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Kenton Sloan <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0965483275=="
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

--===============0965483275==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="--51327342988829331"

----51327342988829331
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8517-4"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body>
<a href="http://hgvli.3ngycd.info/index.php?id=173&affid=5866"><img src="http://unwebj.3ngycd.info/ads/ad5.jpg" border="0"></a>
<p><font color="#000000" size="2" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">cli<font style=font-size:1px>M</font>ck 
 <a href="http://mmsg.3ngycd.info/gone.php">here</a> if you would not like to receive future ma<font style=font-size:1px>e</font>lings.</font></p>
<br><br><font style=font-size:1px>
plaid uprise birthright mcgill tomography toodle hid hobby beneficial disputant swollen corey stockpile fructify hatfield cartilaginous 
</font><br><br>
</body>
</html>

----51327342988829331--


--===============0965483275==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============0965483275==--


From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun  3 11:51:06 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i53Ip5ag022927;
	Thu, 3 Jun 2004 11:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BVwWF-0002K4-3t; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:00:47 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVvo9-0000ol-Gz
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 13:15:13 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23621
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 12:21:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: steve.hanna@sun.com
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVuya-0004b4-3P
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 12:21:56 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BVuxb-0004EY-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 12:20:56 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BVuwX-0003WG-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 12:19:49 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i53GI1r01267
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 12:18:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i53GHDGe012591
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 12:17:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200406031617.i53GHDGe012591@nutshell.tislabs.com>
Received: from unknown(200.252.145.60) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAeKaaKy; Thu, 3 Jun 04 12:17:08 -0400
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 13:22:13 -0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.4 required=5.0 tests=FREE_TRIAL,HTML_20_30,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART,MISSING_MIMEOLE,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,
	NO_REAL_NAME,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Your information
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


My mail is attached.
Thanks

+++ X-Attachment-Type: document
+++ X-Attachment-Status: no virus found
+++ Powered by the new Norton OnlineAntiVirus
+++ Free trial: www.norton.com



------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="mail8.pif.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="mail8.pif.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: mail8.pif<br>
Virus name: W32/Netsky.s@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016--




From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun  3 12:24:13 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i53JOB9u029586;
	Thu, 3 Jun 2004 12:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BVxDX-0004X2-Cj; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:45:31 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVwPU-00015s-QO
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 13:53:48 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24455
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 12:58:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVvXg-00076l-Hv
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 12:58:12 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BVvQP-0003wX-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 12:50:42 -0400
Received: from da001d3897.stl-mo.osd.concentric.net ([66.236.111.57]
	helo=AIREMAIL.airespace.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BVvPS-00034X-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 12:49:42 -0400
Received: from airespace.com ([172.16.16.121]) by AIREMAIL.airespace.com with
	Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Thu, 3 Jun 2004 09:51:30 -0700
Message-ID: <40BF5711.7090404@airespace.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 09:51:29 -0700
From: "Scott G. Kelly" <scott@airespace.com>
Organization: Airespace
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
	rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] Results of the Straw Poll re: Fragmentation handling
References: <E1BVaoD-0001ap-RK@thunk.org>
In-Reply-To: <E1BVaoD-0001ap-RK@thunk.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jun 2004 16:51:30.0337 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[04D20110:01C4498B]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Ted,

I'm a little surprised at your assessment of my position on question
#2, so I think I must have been unclear.  Here's your summary:

> Scott G. Kelly 
 > 1.  SHOULD/MUST (for 3 only)
 > 2.  MUST NOT
 > 3.  SHOULD

Here's what I said for #2:
> NONE of the above - why even mention this? I doubt there are many
> 100% compliant implementations for the first round of ipsec, and find
> it highly unlikely that this will change. Implementations that don't
> care about fragment security probably don't care about port/protocol
> differentiation. The two seem incompatible and unlikely. I can't
> believe we've wasted so much time/energy on this.

I'm sorry that this was unclear. What I meant to say was, why even 
mention this in the draft at all - why make it an option? I guess my 
point was that if folks want to implement special handling for special 
cases, history has demonstrated that they will do so whether they have 
special dispensation or not. It may not make sense to complicate the 
spec for (what I perceive to be) a very small minority of implementations.

That's not a clear selection of one of the terms you asked for, but it's 
definitely not a MUST NOT. I guess I should have used the RFC2119 
language, in which case I might say "SHOULD NOT", meaning someone that 
really knows what they are doing might have justification, but this 
should not be casually undertaken. I think the current draft rev gives 
cautions for ipv6, but we might want similar cautions for ipv4.

The primary assumption underlying a fragment-only SA is that the other 
end can be trusted to only put allowable data into the tunnel. 
Sometimes this assumption is justified, but this is certainly not always 
the case. Hence, this assumption must be evaluated prior to implementing 
a fragment-only tunnel.

As an aside, I wonder if anyone requiring such a thing in practice 
wouldn't be better off to simply "tunnel-all" over a single SA pair.

--Scott

Theodore Ts'o wrote:

> The results of the straw poll indicated that out of 16 responses, 
> roughly twice as many contributors (11) preferred that Methods #2 and
> #3 be a MAY implement, over thouse who preferred that at least one of
>  Methods #2 and #3 be a SHOULD or a MUST (5).
> 
> There was also a somewhat surprising number (albeit a minority) who
> registered a strong dislike of Method #2 --- four or five respondents
> indicated that they thought Method #2 should be a MUST NOT.
> 
> Hence, it seems that we have a rough consensus within the working
> group that both Method #2 and #3 should both be MAY.  To accomodate
> those who dislike Method #2, I would propose that if we can get
> someone from that camp to write a paragraph detailing their
> objections to mixing non-initial fragments when initial fragments are
> not mixed, it would seem to me reasonable to record the minority
> dissent in the architecture specification.
> 
> - Ted
> 
> 
> Yoav Nir 1.  MAY / MAY 2.  MAY 3.  MAY
> 
> Tero Kivnen 1.  SHOULD/MUST 2.  MAY 3.  SHOULD
> 
> Scott G. Kelly 1.  SHOULD/MUST (for 3 only) 2.  MUST NOT 3.  SHOULD
> 
> Michael Roe 1.  MAY / MAY 2.  MAY 3.  MAY
> 
> Yougui Cheng 1.  MAY / MAY 2.  SHOULD NOT 3.  MAY
> 
> Mark Duffy 1.  MAY / MAY 2.  MAY 3.  MAY
> 
> Niklas Hallqvist 1.  MAY / MAY 2.  MAY 3.  MAY
> 
> Srini 1.  SHOULD / MUST 2.  MAY 3.  SHOULD
> 
> Satoshi Inoue 1.  MAY /  MAY 2.  MAY 3.  MAY
> 
> Valery Smyslov 1.  SHOULD / MUST 2.  MAY 3.  SHOULD
> 
> Paul Hoffman 1.  MAY / MAY 2.  MAY 3.  MAY
> 
> Bora Akyol 1.  MAY  / MAY 2.  MAY 3.  MAY
> 
> Joe Tardo 1.  SHOULD / MUST (3 should be MUST) 2.  MAY 3.  SHOULD
> 
> Markku Savela 1.  MAY / MAY 2.  MUST NOT 3.  MAY
> 
> 
> Mika Joutsenvirta 1.  MAY / MAY 2.  MAY 3.  MAY
> 
> Joe Touch 1.  MAY / MAY (2 MUST NOT) 2.  MUST NOT 3.  MAY
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ Ipsec mailing list 
> Ipsec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun  3 16:57:30 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i53NvQZZ087127;
	Thu, 3 Jun 2004 16:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BW1oa-0006Xu-GW; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 19:40:04 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BW1dv-00034D-8M
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 19:29:03 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09006
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 19:29:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BW1dt-0000zH-R3
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 19:29:01 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BW1bf-0000I1-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 19:26:45 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BW1X4-0006iZ-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 19:21:58 -0400
Received: from YahooBB219048174019.bbtec.net (YahooBB219048174019.bbtec.net
	[219.48.174.19])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i53NK3r28812;
	Thu, 3 Jun 2004 19:20:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200406032320.i53NK3r28812@lists.tislabs.com>
X-Message-Info: X132IX532Bu93piWhiwE5V721nBqqiV2
Received: from mail pickup service by 219.48.174.19 with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	Fri, 04 Jun 2004 01:19:41 +0100
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
From: "Raymundo Rivers" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 04:14:41 +0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.1 required=5.0 tests=BIZ_TLD, CLICK_BELOW, HTML_70_80,
	HTML_LINK_CLICK_HERE,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TAG_EXISTS_TBODY,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY,MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER 
	autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Re: Low cost meds - Shipped overnight
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Raymundo Rivers <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1696908313=="
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

--===============1696908313==
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="--47406471062851185507"

----47406471062851185507
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-0650-6"
Content-Description: battlefield carolyn7.cashew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>anabaptist ft deere contiguity monomial earth stickle gymnosperm 

dramatic  send agnostic freeport marginal moisture deadwood hem thine 

infest</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY vLink=#990000 aLink=#990000 link=#990000 bgColor=#ffffff>

<DIV><BR></DIV>&nbsp; 
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 borderColorDark=#000000 width=657 align=center 
borderColorLight=#000000 border=1>

  <TBODY>
  <TR bgColor=#cccccc>
    <TD borderColor=#000000 width=157 bgColor=#ffffff rowSpan=4>
      <DIV align=center><IMG 
      src="http://afloat.a6.hedonism6407meds.biz/pills/p-docs1.jpg"></DIV></TD>
    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.intern.com"></A>
      <DIV align=center><STRONG><FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Prozac</FONT>&nbsp;</STRONG></DIV></TD>
    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.arc.net"></A>
      <DIV align=center><STRONG>&nbsp;<FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">V<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>agra</FONT></STRONG></DIV></TD>

    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.aviary.org"></A>
      <DIV align=center><STRONG>&nbsp;<FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Phe<A 
      href="http://www.insist.net"></A>nterm<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>ne</FONT></STRONG></DIV></TD>
    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.elude.org"></A>
      <DIV align=center><STRONG>&nbsp;<FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So<A 
      href="http://www.gosling.com"></A>ma</FONT></STRONG></DIV></TD></TR>
  <TR bgColor=#ffffff>
    <TD><A href="http://www.camel.com"></A>

      <DIV align=center><IMG 
      src="http://benedict.a6.hedonism6407meds.biz/pills/p-zac.gif"></DIV></TD>
    <TD><A href="http://www.kelly.org"></A>
      <DIV align=center><IMG src="http://aristocratic.a6.hedonism6407meds.biz/pills/pres-via.gif"></DIV></TD>
    <TD><A href="http://www.alveoli.com"></A>
      <DIV align=center><IMG 
      src="http://immanent.a6.hedonism6407meds.biz/pills/p-phnt.gif"></DIV></TD>
    <TD><A href="http://www.absorbent.net"></A>
      <DIV align=center><IMG 
    src="http://conversion.a6.hedonism6407meds.biz/pills/p-som.gif"></DIV></TD></TR>
  <TR bgColor=#cccccc>
    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.pitchstone.com"></A>

      <DIV align=center><STRONG><FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">&nbsp;Amb<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>en</FONT></STRONG></DIV></TD>
    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.crunch.org"></A>
      <DIV align=center><STRONG><FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Val<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>um</FONT>&nbsp;</STRONG></DIV></TD>
    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.cognition.org"></A>
      <DIV align=center><STRONG>&nbsp;<FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">C<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>alis</FONT></STRONG></DIV></TD>

    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.transpose.net"></A>
      <DIV align=center><STRONG>&nbsp;<FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Xa<A 
      href="http://www.adaptive.com"></A>nax</FONT></STRONG></DIV></TD></TR>
  <TR bgColor=#ffffff>
    <TD><A href="http://www.prefabricate.net"></A>
      <DIV align=center><IMG 
      src="http://bonn.a6.hedonism6407meds.biz/pills/p-amb.gif"></DIV></TD>
    <TD><A href="http://www.crucial.com"></A>
      <DIV align=center><IMG 
      src="http://starlet.a6.hedonism6407meds.biz/pills/p-val.gif"></DIV></TD>
    <TD><A href="http://www.twigging.com"></A>

      <DIV align=center><IMG 
      src="http://ammonia.a6.hedonism6407meds.biz/pills/p-cls.jpg"></DIV></TD>
    <TD><A href="http://www.cobra.com"></A>
      <DIV align=center><IMG 
    src="http://frieze.a6.hedonism6407meds.biz/pills/p-xan.gif"></DIV></TD></TR>
  <TR borderColor=#000000>
    <TD colSpan=5 height=10></TD></TR>
  <TR bgColor=#009933 >
    <TD borderColor=#000000 width=407 bgColor=#009933  colSpan=3 rowSpan=6>
      <DIV align=center><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 24px" 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff>Get ov<A 
      href="http://www.cranberry.org"></A>er 300 medicat<B><FONT 
      size=3>l</FONT></B>ons online sh<B><FONT size=3>l</FONT></B>pp<A 
      href="http://www.pakistan.com"></A>ed over<A 
      href="http://www.right.net"></A>nig<A 
      href="http://www.dwindlet.org"></A>ht to your fr<A 
      href="http://www.bellini.org"></A>ont do<A 
      href="http://www.gallinule.com"></A>or with no pr<A 
      href="http://www.gasket.net"></A>escr<B><FONT 
      size=3>l</FONT></B>ption.</FONT></FONT></DIV></TD>

    <TD vAlign=center borderColor=#009933  align=middle width=250 colSpan=2>
      <DIV align=left><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" 
      color=#ffffff size=3><STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*</STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;No 
      Prescr<FONT size=2>l</FONT>pt<FONT 
      size=2>l</FONT>on&nbsp;Needed</FONT></DIV></TD></TR>
  <TR>
    <TD vAlign=center borderColor=#009933  align=middle bgColor=#009933  
colSpan=2>
      <DIV align=left><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" 
      color=#ffffff size=3><STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*</STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;Fully 
      Conf<FONT size=2>l</FONT>dential</FONT></DIV></TD></TR>

  <TR>
    <TD vAlign=center borderColor=#009933  align=middle bgColor=#009933  
colSpan=2>
      <DIV align=left><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" 
      color=#ffffff size=3><STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*</STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;No 
      Embarrassment</FONT></DIV>
      <DIV align=left></DIV></TD></TR>
  <TR>
    <TD vAlign=center borderColor=#009933  align=middle bgColor=#009933  
colSpan=2>
      <DIV align=left><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" 
      color=#ffffff size=3><STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*</STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;No 
      Waiting Rooms</FONT></DIV></TD></TR>

  <TR>
    <TD vAlign=center borderColor=#009933  align=middle bgColor=#009933  
colSpan=2>
      <DIV align=left><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" 
      color=#ffffff 
      size=3><STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*</STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;Sh<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>pped Overn<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>ght</FONT></DIV></TD></TR>
  <TR>
    <TD vAlign=center borderColor=#009933  align=middle bgColor=#009933  
colSpan=2>
      <DIV align=left><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" 
      color=#ffffff 
      size=3><STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*</STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;D<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>screet Packaging</FONT></DIV></TD></TR>

  <TR borderColor=#ffffff bgColor=#ffffff>
    <TD colSpan=5 height=10></TD></TR>
  <TR borderColor=#000000 bgColor=#cccccc>
    <TD colSpan=5 height=40>
      <DIV align=center><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" 
      color=#000000><A href="http://hedonism6407meds.biz/g39"><STRONG>Click 
      Here For Information</STRONG></A></FONT></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P align=center><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1>If y<A 
href="http://www.cobblestone.net"></A>ou wi<A href="http://www.lowell.net"></A>sh for 
em<A href="http://www.almond.org"></A>ail el<A 
href="http://www.blotch.org"></A>imin<A 
href="http://www.liquidus.org"></A>atio<A 
href="http://www.malignant.org"></A>n, you can do so <A 
href="http://denunciation.hedonism6407meds.biz/unsubscribe.ddd">here.</A></FONT></P>

<P>&nbsp;</P><BR>
<P>&nbsp;</P><BR>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P> chalky earthmoving bestubble draco earthmove chair bail marcello 

crimp equilibrate
 manley commiserate crankcase salutary resurrect internecine renault cia prophet 

promulgate
 resort krebs sacrament broth bedrock apricot palm weatherbeaten jest 

workaday
 acre barrette incredulous amnesia bujumbura bright thespian mart dickinson 

begotten
 consultative stylish tournament stanhope glove sian midnight impressible mathewson 

deck
 intellectual patrolling chromatogram flaunt elk dualism carrion asparagine analytic 

robinson
 craftsperson amethystine chandelier siege homology inflame albeit disrupt debut 

ambiguity
 patchy bibliography booky chalkboard diplomatic yardstick steppe payroll ejaculate 

disquietude
 anyway hydrophilic sacrificial psychometry clive ironside emasculate shalom aspersion 

prescriptcornflower rectify distinguish scalp puissant consequent sentiment peabody aau 

annalen
 comfort fabulous trainman alacrity pond aile suffragette pectoralis continuous 

gain
 sentential knot carolinian lose cowardice calcify woo weinberg obey 

plumb
 thieves capitulate liquidus post iodate panoramic pravda pence egregious 

lanthanum
 atypic spade poultice corset soignee sliver impasse jaw memorable 

laos
 dictionary smooth aberrant debra jennie congressman bridgetown perth lorinda 

excretion
 joel viscous tenneco dave councilwomen swanky audrey czech physiognomy 

decadent 
</BODY></HTML>


----47406471062851185507--


--===============1696908313==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============1696908313==--


From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun  4 06:45:38 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i54DjZ75019347;
	Fri, 4 Jun 2004 06:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BWEtH-0001Jt-FO; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 09:37:47 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BWEga-0007R8-2a
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 09:24:40 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA07603
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 09:24:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: ietf-wd@v6security.com
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BWEgZ-0000qk-4F
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 09:24:39 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BWEf5-00004X-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 09:23:07 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BWEbm-000749-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 09:19:42 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i54DHqr10205
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 09:17:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i54DH6Bx023459
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 09:17:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200406041317.i54DH6Bx023459@nutshell.tislabs.com>
Received: from unknown(200.252.145.60) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAACEaGWT; Fri, 4 Jun 04 09:17:03 -0400
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 10:22:09 -0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.9 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30, HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED, 
	HTML_MESSAGE, LINES_OF_YELLING, LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART, 
	MISSING_MIMEOLE,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,NO_REAL_NAME,PRIORITY_NO_NAME 
	autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Re: Hi
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


The user list.


+++ X-Attachment-Type: document
+++ X-Attachment-Status: no virus found
+++ Powered by the new F-Secure OnlineAntiVirus
+++ Visit us: www.f-secure.com



------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="user_list7.pif.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="user_list7.pif.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: user_list7.pif<br>
Virus name: W32/Netsky.s@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016--




From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun  4 10:01:15 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i54H1DgO046706;
	Fri, 4 Jun 2004 10:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BWHrK-0001jK-Nw; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 12:47:58 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BWHjF-0008Ko-Vb
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 12:39:38 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21447
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 12:39:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BWHjE-00027F-TP
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 12:39:36 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BWHiN-0001kv-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 12:38:45 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BWHhS-0001Nt-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 12:37:46 -0400
Received: from user-0c90pr0.cable.mindspring.com
	(user-0c90pr0.cable.mindspring.com [24.144.103.96])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i54GZkr07027
	for <ipsec@portal.gw.tislabs.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 12:35:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200406041635.i54GZkr07027@lists.tislabs.com>
X-Message-Info: D836DS360TOlucu4hscYEBuMW23V1qoTITdoIV44
Received: from 226.228.57.238 by
	ip-1-546-538-500.u.ipsec@portal.gw.tislabs.com (AppleMailServer
	36.0.1.6) id 155257306410 via NDR; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 15:29:22 -0200
From: "Eloise Holt" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@portal.tislabs.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 11:37:22 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.1 required=5.0 tests=BIZ_TLD, CLICK_BELOW, HTML_70_80,
	HTML_LINK_CLICK_HERE,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TAG_EXISTS_TBODY,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY,MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER 
	autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Low cost xanax,valium, soma,etc
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Eloise Holt <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1488148107=="
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

--===============1488148107==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="--0431813672237297"

----0431813672237297
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-3102-6"
Content-Description: buret cancelled00.muslin
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>bellingham hosiery bitt nuclide archer abetting hood durham 

plaza  inexpedient limerick career epitaph circlet cumulus downward tectonic 

sough</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY vLink=#990000 aLink=#990000 link=#990000 bgColor=#ffffff>

<DIV><BR></DIV>&nbsp; 
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 borderColorDark=#000000 width=657 align=center 
borderColorLight=#000000 border=1>

  <TBODY>
  <TR bgColor=#cccccc>
    <TD borderColor=#000000 width=157 bgColor=#ffffff rowSpan=4>
      <DIV align=center><IMG 
      src="http://cryptanalysis.a6.bungalow3139pill.biz/pills/p-docs1.jpg"></DIV></TD>
    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.renovate.com"></A>
      <DIV align=center><STRONG><FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Prozac</FONT>&nbsp;</STRONG></DIV></TD>
    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.nitrate.net"></A>
      <DIV align=center><STRONG>&nbsp;<FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">V<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>agra</FONT></STRONG></DIV></TD>

    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.bootleg.org"></A>
      <DIV align=center><STRONG>&nbsp;<FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Phe<A 
      href="http://www.biaxial.net"></A>nterm<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>ne</FONT></STRONG></DIV></TD>
    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.dictate.org"></A>
      <DIV align=center><STRONG>&nbsp;<FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So<A 
      href="http://www.oppression.com"></A>ma</FONT></STRONG></DIV></TD></TR>
  <TR bgColor=#ffffff>
    <TD><A href="http://www.yap.com"></A>

      <DIV align=center><IMG 
      src="http://binary.a6.bungalow3139pill.biz/pills/p-zac.gif"></DIV></TD>
    <TD><A href="http://www.westchester.org"></A>
      <DIV align=center><IMG src="http://bumblebee.a6.bungalow3139pill.biz/pills/pres-via.gif"></DIV></TD>
    <TD><A href="http://www.crescent.com"></A>
      <DIV align=center><IMG 
      src="http://nineveh.a6.bungalow3139pill.biz/pills/p-phnt.gif"></DIV></TD>
    <TD><A href="http://www.spiegel.net"></A>
      <DIV align=center><IMG 
    src="http://euclidean.a6.bungalow3139pill.biz/pills/p-som.gif"></DIV></TD></TR>
  <TR bgColor=#cccccc>
    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.rena.com"></A>

      <DIV align=center><STRONG><FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">&nbsp;Amb<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>en</FONT></STRONG></DIV></TD>
    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.seagram.org"></A>
      <DIV align=center><STRONG><FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Val<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>um</FONT>&nbsp;</STRONG></DIV></TD>
    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.dahomey.org"></A>
      <DIV align=center><STRONG>&nbsp;<FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">C<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>alis</FONT></STRONG></DIV></TD>

    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.delirious.net"></A>
      <DIV align=center><STRONG>&nbsp;<FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Xa<A 
      href="http://www.lifespan.com"></A>nax</FONT></STRONG></DIV></TD></TR>
  <TR bgColor=#ffffff>
    <TD><A href="http://www.incur.net"></A>
      <DIV align=center><IMG 
      src="http://scam.a6.bungalow3139pill.biz/pills/p-amb.gif"></DIV></TD>
    <TD><A href="http://www.cabinet.com"></A>
      <DIV align=center><IMG 
      src="http://monocotyledon.a6.bungalow3139pill.biz/pills/p-val.gif"></DIV></TD>
    <TD><A href="http://www.easel.com"></A>

      <DIV align=center><IMG 
      src="http://corrigendum.a6.bungalow3139pill.biz/pills/p-cls.jpg"></DIV></TD>
    <TD><A href="http://www.rectifier.com"></A>
      <DIV align=center><IMG 
    src="http://tighten.a6.bungalow3139pill.biz/pills/p-xan.gif"></DIV></TD></TR>
  <TR borderColor=#000000>
    <TD colSpan=5 height=10></TD></TR>
  <TR bgColor=#009933 >
    <TD borderColor=#000000 width=407 bgColor=#009933  colSpan=3 rowSpan=6>
      <DIV align=center><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 24px" 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff>Get ov<A 
      href="http://www.michelson.org"></A>er 300 medicat<B><FONT 
      size=3>l</FONT></B>ons online sh<B><FONT size=3>l</FONT></B>pp<A 
      href="http://www.vii.com"></A>ed over<A 
      href="http://www.lumbermen.net"></A>nig<A 
      href="http://www.vladivostokt.org"></A>ht to your fr<A 
      href="http://www.of.org"></A>ont do<A 
      href="http://www.pterodactyl.com"></A>or with no pr<A 
      href="http://www.distillate.net"></A>escr<B><FONT 
      size=3>l</FONT></B>ption.</FONT></FONT></DIV></TD>

    <TD vAlign=center borderColor=#009933  align=middle width=250 colSpan=2>
      <DIV align=left><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" 
      color=#ffffff size=3><STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*</STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;No 
      Prescr<FONT size=2>l</FONT>pt<FONT 
      size=2>l</FONT>on&nbsp;Needed</FONT></DIV></TD></TR>
  <TR>
    <TD vAlign=center borderColor=#009933  align=middle bgColor=#009933  
colSpan=2>
      <DIV align=left><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" 
      color=#ffffff size=3><STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*</STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;Fully 
      Conf<FONT size=2>l</FONT>dential</FONT></DIV></TD></TR>

  <TR>
    <TD vAlign=center borderColor=#009933  align=middle bgColor=#009933  
colSpan=2>
      <DIV align=left><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" 
      color=#ffffff size=3><STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*</STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;No 
      Embarrassment</FONT></DIV>
      <DIV align=left></DIV></TD></TR>
  <TR>
    <TD vAlign=center borderColor=#009933  align=middle bgColor=#009933  
colSpan=2>
      <DIV align=left><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" 
      color=#ffffff size=3><STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*</STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;No 
      Waiting Rooms</FONT></DIV></TD></TR>

  <TR>
    <TD vAlign=center borderColor=#009933  align=middle bgColor=#009933  
colSpan=2>
      <DIV align=left><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" 
      color=#ffffff 
      size=3><STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*</STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;Sh<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>pped Overn<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>ght</FONT></DIV></TD></TR>
  <TR>
    <TD vAlign=center borderColor=#009933  align=middle bgColor=#009933  
colSpan=2>
      <DIV align=left><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" 
      color=#ffffff 
      size=3><STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*</STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;D<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>screet Packaging</FONT></DIV></TD></TR>

  <TR borderColor=#ffffff bgColor=#ffffff>
    <TD colSpan=5 height=10></TD></TR>
  <TR borderColor=#000000 bgColor=#cccccc>
    <TD colSpan=5 height=40>
      <DIV align=center><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" 
      color=#000000><A href="http://bungalow3139pill.biz/g39"><STRONG>Click 
      Here For Information</STRONG></A></FONT></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P align=center><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1>If y<A 
href="http://www.haiti.net"></A>ou wi<A href="http://www.admitted.net"></A>sh for 
em<A href="http://www.thither.org"></A>ail el<A 
href="http://www.fragrant.org"></A>imin<A 
href="http://www.injun.org"></A>atio<A 
href="http://www.prism.org"></A>n, you can do so <A 
href="http://quintillion.bungalow3139pill.biz/unsubscribe.ddd">here.</A></FONT></P>

<P>&nbsp;</P><BR>
<P>&nbsp;</P><BR>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P> snowball nashua amount gabrielle blissful fritillary gather depredate 

calendrical alveolus
 etch usury bostonian chanson monolith blanc maltreat they've pion 

analysis
 retrofitted strikebreak swami roundtable sip magnesite wrist sumeria basilisk 

hinge
 buteo triptych dow cinderella bake modicum radar derate reconnaissance 

ouch
 qatar abstract garrison pantheism legerdemain thurman nearsighted administratrix shibboleth 

banbury
 amperage oberlin culinary garcia eft coagulate councilman ala albumin 

incursion
 roast certify arbitrage friction pollution suggestive rankin level tutorial 

gumshoe
 agree glossary oilmen vague inducible peugeot winkle kennedy buttonweed 

stupor
 spectrography ks clapboard fl legend nettle frill rubric adapt 

demisedigit moroccan pursuer vertebral expunge hey erode contralto czech 

wheresoever
 ambidextrous autocratic hitherto occipital olav confuse ship alvin candidacy 

bartlett
 monash andover fumble roof eclat diploid afford bulwark whereabout 

crematory
 squirmy coastline tarnish ice phenylalanine vessel pang shifty hex 

w
 palisade adjutant pericles granular couscous yarn guam airframe percentage 

uracil
 trudge zloty blocky magna ephesian argive idea gust turnaround 

groin
 sylow bullfinch cheat daybed practise obtain buzzer authentic athwart 

lovelorn 
</BODY></HTML>


----0431813672237297--


--===============1488148107==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============1488148107==--


From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun  4 13:12:04 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i54KC3fe074842;
	Fri, 4 Jun 2004 13:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BWKxL-0002pv-0f; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 16:06:23 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BWKra-0001wc-Vl
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 16:00:27 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06406
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:00:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BWKrZ-0004dX-EX
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 16:00:25 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BWKqg-0004J6-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 15:59:30 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BWKps-0003z7-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 15:58:40 -0400
Received: from f39019.upc-f.chello.nl (f39019.upc-f.chello.nl [80.56.39.19])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i54Jufr29005;
	Fri, 4 Jun 2004 15:56:42 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Info: NVBEnJG34cQ5CxoN4PkjtZ7J0N0g74ZV
Received: from bernhard.bahama.com ([144.88.193.24]) by eo74-a71.hotmail.com
	with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); 
	Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:42:36 -0300
Received: from tty9-dwindle3.R6mna.com (crystallography4 [163.253.4.76])
	by boxy.u9.com (4.52.8/7.14.8) with ESMTP id q4FQ1bo65479
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 12:37:36 -0700 GMT
Received: (from i7cardiac@localhost)
	by eto2-bissau7.i6mdh.com (8.62.1/5.52.4) id e1QM6yk96755;
	Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:37:36 +0500 GMT
X-Authentication-Warning: oto2-seville2.s2wdg.com: c7mastodon set sender to
	ipsec@lists.tislabs.com using -f
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 14:36:36 -0500
From: Thomas Roberson <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Message-Id: <wku8_rnz1-2837679119-0192156185-14-61897.5769117194@fermat1>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.7 required=5.0 tests=BIZ_TLD,HTML_60_70,
	HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_06,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Hi Ipsec
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1507072241=="
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

--===============1507072241==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="--513860404551313"

----513860404551313
Content-Type: text/html;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body>
<table width="450" height="447" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" align="center">
<tr>
<td>
<a href="http://www.077.acne4837rx.biz/b12"><img src="http://034.a6.acne4837rx.biz/pills/c09_01.gif" width="450" height="229" border="0"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<a href="http://www.645.hedonism6407meds.biz/b12"><img src="http://796.a6.acne4837rx.biz/pills/c09_02.gif" width="450" height="129" border="0"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<a href="http://www.496.acne4837rx.biz/b12"><img src="http://309.a6.wonderment1777tabs.biz/pills/c09_03.gif" width="450" height="89" border="0"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">
Sa<font style=font-size:1px>E</font>ve 6<font style=font-size:1px>G</font>0% ord<font style=font-size:1px>K</font>ering onl<font style=font-size:1px>O</font>ine To<font style=font-size:1px>B</font>day!<br><br>
<b><a href="http://www.490.hedonism6407meds.biz/b12">Vi<font style=font-size:1px>u</font>sit our Site and Sa<font style=font-size:1px>S</font>ve Big</a></b><br><br>
</font>
<font style=font-size:1px>
distaff burro rater stanza collaborate higgins jeroboam gluing argentina patchy refractory drury anorthic fay can't chevrolet siege auspicious bert perchlorate longitudinal deforest compute conqueror icarus dublin cain bergman hightail tudor penance rutabaga intendant din blur BX7
sterile beethoven antisemite dar hansel karma block sunburn archimedes parquet ostrander vignette okay beauteous rave austenite 6DY6
duckeminent
</font>
<br>
<a href="http://968ranking299pill.biz/unsubscribe.ddd">rm</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>


----513860404551313--



--===============1507072241==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============1507072241==--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun  4 14:40:15 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i54LeEKs088115;
	Fri, 4 Jun 2004 14:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BWLgn-0001BN-HW; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 16:53:21 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BWLN8-0000I9-Ei
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 16:33:02 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08142
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:33:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BWLN7-0000Ny-3A
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 16:33:01 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BWLM1-0007jv-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 16:31:54 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BWLKw-0007Ir-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 16:30:46 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i54KSur02382
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:28:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i54KSAZj022167
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:28:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from snark.piermont.com(166.84.151.72) by nutshell.tislabs.com via
	csmap (V6.0) id srcAAAxja4rR; Fri, 4 Jun 04 16:28:08 -0400
Received: by snark.piermont.com (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 08B12D97C8; Fri,  4 Jun 2004 16:30:42 -0400 (EDT)
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 16:30:41 -0400
Message-ID: <87pt8fysjy.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] spam
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org


Is there a reason posting to this list can't be restricted to
subscribers? The spam levels are insane.

Perry

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun  4 15:39:21 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i54MdJIv095791;
	Fri, 4 Jun 2004 15:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BWN9S-00029w-4j; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 18:27:02 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BWMvP-0003Bp-SX
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 18:12:32 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA21525
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 18:12:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BWMvO-0006sr-Bb
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 18:12:30 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BWMoV-0005MP-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 18:05:24 -0400
Received: from boreas.isi.edu ([128.9.160.161])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BWMfa-0003BS-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 17:56:10 -0400
Received: from isi.edu (upn.isi.edu [128.9.168.55])
	by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id i54LsPJ22516;
	Fri, 4 Jun 2004 14:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <40C0EFC0.9010607@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 14:55:12 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Scott G. Kelly" <scott@airespace.com>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] Results of the Straw Poll re: Fragmentation handling
References: <E1BVaoD-0001ap-RK@thunk.org> <40BF5711.7090404@airespace.com>
In-Reply-To: <40BF5711.7090404@airespace.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.5.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1706705452=="
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--===============1706705452==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="------------enigB4DBC5556ACAFCE467188339"

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigB4DBC5556ACAFCE467188339
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



Scott G. Kelly wrote:

> Hi Ted,
> 
> I'm a little surprised at your assessment of my position on question
> #2, so I think I must have been unclear.  Here's your summary:
> 
>> Scott G. Kelly 
> 
>  > 1.  SHOULD/MUST (for 3 only)
>  > 2.  MUST NOT
>  > 3.  SHOULD
> 
> Here's what I said for #2:
> 
>> NONE of the above - why even mention this? I doubt there are many
>> 100% compliant implementations for the first round of ipsec, and find
>> it highly unlikely that this will change. Implementations that don't
>> care about fragment security probably don't care about port/protocol
>> differentiation. The two seem incompatible and unlikely. I can't
>> believe we've wasted so much time/energy on this.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry that this was unclear. What I meant to say was, why even 
> mention this in the draft at all - why make it an option? 

I agree - even mentioning it just confuses things. There are no other 
cases where packets from a single SPI entering on a single interface 
with the same addresses and ports are handled by different SPD entries.

I can't imagine why anyone would think separating the two would be a 
good thing, and if the policies are different, a dangerous thing.

...
> That's not a clear selection of one of the terms you asked for, but it's 
> definitely not a MUST NOT. I guess I should have used the RFC2119 
> language, in which case I might say "SHOULD NOT", meaning someone that 
> really knows what they are doing might have justification, but this 
> should not be casually undertaken. I think the current draft rev gives 
> cautions for ipv6, but we might want similar cautions for ipv4.

Anyone who wants to violate a spec can do so at their own peril. The 
MUST NOT would be to suggest this is a dangerous thing, with otherwise 
uncontrolled consequences. IMO, if it's mentioned at all, it is 
definitely MUST NOT.

Joe

--------------enigB4DBC5556ACAFCE467188339
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFAwO/AE5f5cImnZrsRAr1wAJ0Z+N65ld+NybHCizy+CQpzMCbQAwCgtLuQ
FfRuuHhEYa0mQZOjseteJOA=
=1thp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enigB4DBC5556ACAFCE467188339--


--===============1706705452==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============1706705452==--


From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun  4 19:44:15 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i552iEmN027703;
	Fri, 4 Jun 2004 19:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BWR53-00033L-Ew; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:38:45 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BWR38-0002rU-Ft
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:36:46 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA04962
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 22:36:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BWR36-0002bV-G1
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:36:44 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BWR2R-0002IE-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:36:03 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BWR1a-0001x4-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:35:10 -0400
Received: from cm218-254-16-115.hkcable.com.hk
	(cm218-254-16-115.hkcable.com.hk [218.254.16.115])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i552XIr06109
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 22:33:18 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Info: Q237Z375CMS944znY180DGH0qwtKamjIWI187
Received: from [44.25.150.209] by
	faraday68285.wheatstone.ipsec@lists.tislabs.com via HTTP;
	Mon, 07 Jun 2004 03:43:33 +0100
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 06:38:33 +0400
Message-ID: <52096420402.95918@ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Norman Elkins" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:45:33 -0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BIZ_TLD autolearn=no 
	version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] 387121
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Norman Elkins <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1961276267=="
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

--===============1961276267==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="--8078785707281710"

----8078785707281710
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-1950-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

Ipsec,%

75%off for all New Softwares.
WindowXP,Photoshop,Window2003...etcMore

http://mus.willbringtoyou.biz/index.php?s=3971

--
morris always touchdown betoken monolith couldn't irreconcilable cohesive cargoes bodhisattva regal spline shrewish hankel taipei borealis core hockey capella erode bracket butyl comparison amorous clout confidante scarsdale clothbound dyer wreck monkey 

----8078785707281710--


--===============1961276267==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============1961276267==--


From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun  4 19:56:32 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i552uVNg029046;
	Fri, 4 Jun 2004 19:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BWRJX-00053h-QB; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:53:43 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BWRIg-0004tK-Lu
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:52:50 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA05434
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 22:52:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: rob.parkhill@windriver.com
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BWRIe-000024-Oh
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:52:48 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BWRHj-0007V9-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:51:51 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BWRHK-0007B1-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:51:27 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i552nVr07343
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 22:49:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i552mer6007102
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 22:48:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from unknown-1-11.windriver.com(147.11.1.11) by nutshell.tislabs.com
	via csmap (V6.0) id srcAAAH7aO2n; Fri, 4 Jun 04 22:48:38 -0400
Received: from ala-mta03.windriver.com (ala-mta03 [147.11.57.132])
	by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA01123
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 19:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ala-mta03.wrs.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <MC1LCGH3>; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 19:51:08 -0700
Message-ID: <FB3BAE941CB9B24782B2DE43D755BD8901D338F3@ala-mail02.wrs.com>
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: [Suspected Spam] [Ipsec] 387121
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 19:51:02 -0700 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no 
	version=2.60
Cc: 
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

I will be out of the office from June 7th until June 9th, and will only have
limited email access. For all urgent IPsec issues, please contact David
Mikulin.

thanks...
         Rob

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jun  5 12:19:40 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i55JJdWq037064;
	Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BWgcz-0002sY-E9; Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:14:49 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BWgbf-0002Cz-QO
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:13:27 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29365
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Jun 2004 15:13:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BWgbe-0003v8-H2
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:13:26 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BWgad-0003dP-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:12:24 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BWgZf-0003Lb-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:11:23 -0400
Received: from cm218-253-74-40.hkcable.com.hk (cm218-253-74-40.hkcable.com.hk
	[218.253.74.40])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i55J9Sr04695
	for <ipsec@portal.gw.tislabs.com>; Sat, 5 Jun 2004 15:09:29 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Info: 5EAotSDY60LDQsv55TN53bkxSgiEIC57hnET686xnVLBkkM574
Received: from dns508netbird.com ([56.194.23.116]) by
	1zh-lv1.ipsec@portal.gw.tislabs.com with Microsoft
	SMTPSVC(5.0.9825.7513); Tue, 06 Jul 2004 15:14:00 -0400
Message-ID: <8078560920240.63155@ipsec@portal.gw.tislabs.com>
From: "Christian Noel" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@portal.tislabs.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:06:00 +0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.7 required=5.0 tests=BIZ_TLD, ROUND_THE_WORLD_LOCAL 
	autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Hi Ipsec
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Christian Noel <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1048123357=="
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

--===============1048123357==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="--1209521898817069487"

----1209521898817069487
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8023-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

stair  algal  cookery  delimitation

Ipsec,%

We are your your convenient, safe and private on^line source for FDA
a.ppro`ved prescriptions. 

If you need X^an@x, V@|ium, Vi^c0`din, S.oma, Paxi1 or Meridia we have it.

Overnight sh~ipping 

Get it Today:  http://www.937.xerox4160pill.biz/b12

Simple or-dering system 

nope, not for me:  http://added.coulomb.gfg4sd.com/b.html

quillwort listen afraid bloodstone dylan dew objet dale hub calf fasten sonogram .

----1209521898817069487--


--===============1048123357==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============1048123357==--


From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jun  5 17:56:41 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i560udnr078876;
	Sat, 5 Jun 2004 17:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BWlux-0001Jc-9B; Sat, 05 Jun 2004 20:53:43 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BWlsx-000144-AH
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jun 2004 20:51:39 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA17216
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Jun 2004 20:51:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: uri@lucent.com
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BWlsv-0003g0-H6
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jun 2004 20:51:37 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BWlry-0003Pa-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jun 2004 20:50:39 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BWlrf-00039l-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jun 2004 20:50:19 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i560mSr15665
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Sat, 5 Jun 2004 20:48:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i560lhmC000576
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Sat, 5 Jun 2004 20:47:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from va-staff-u1-c5f-78.frbgva.adelphia.net(67.21.59.78) by
	nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAATtaOgb; Sat, 5 Jun 04 20:47:39 -0400
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 20:50:12 -0500
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Message-ID: <cofhsdnendjqauytgah@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------wonfkvpjfokybpgjjtui"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Incoming message
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------wonfkvpjfokybpgjjtui
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
Follow  the wabbit.<br><br>

<br>
</body></html>

----------wonfkvpjfokybpgjjtui
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="Details.pif.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="Details.pif.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: Details.pif<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.n@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------wonfkvpjfokybpgjjtui
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------wonfkvpjfokybpgjjtui--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jun  6 07:36:31 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i56EaT0Z054597;
	Sun, 6 Jun 2004 07:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BWyid-0008CV-Gs; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 10:33:51 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BWyi1-00081w-Gh
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 10:33:14 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03143
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jun 2004 10:33:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BWyi0-0000Ug-FQ
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 10:33:12 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BWyh4-0000Fc-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 10:32:14 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BWygD-0007n5-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 10:31:21 -0400
Received: from YOUR-WJCOX37R61 ([221.127.71.52])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i56ETQr02918
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Sun, 6 Jun 2004 10:29:27 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Info: 9ZYY77Jndme669wijYDDsWO917EEU335oaXQBryESL770
Received: from 243.8.74.15 by
	chaotic315-qh59.stenography43.ipsec@lists.tislabs.com with DAV; 
	Tue, 08 Jun 2004 16:37:34 +0100
Message-ID: <45711418816.00062@ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
X-Originating-IP: [149.108.192.248]
X-Originating-Email: [ipsec@lists.tislabs.com]
X-Sender: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
From: "Marci Cramer" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:31:34 +0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Ipsec liqueur bungalow 
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Marci Cramer <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1984266788=="
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

--===============1984266788==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="--=====118294448107=_"

----=====118294448107=_
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-7115-6"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

countrify  articulatory  studious  kerygma

Ipsec,)

We are your your convenient, safe and private on^line source for FDA
a.ppro`ved prescriptions. 

If you need X^an@x, V@|ium, Vi^c0`din, S.oma, Paxi1 or Meridia we have it.

Overnight sh~ipping 

Get it Today:  http://www.595.weeds2181biz.us/b12

Simple or-dering system 

nope, not for me:  http://apex.multitude.gfg4sd.com/b.html

newsman flag chippendale aspire fanciful freight daughter ligature asphalt grim bam barbudo bill prep discriminant hug bolshoi volvo carrel contour aloft hyacinth seder budge tyranny phage beast pound stimulate jurisprudential ouch southpaw atalanta articulatory crate devotion bestselling extroversion dilution coil duress delphinium puffball repartee blatz hydrosphere .

----=====118294448107=_--


--===============1984266788==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============1984266788==--


From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jun  6 09:41:38 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i56Gfboa066417;
	Sun, 6 Jun 2004 09:41:37 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BX0fb-0007HO-8c; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 12:38:51 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BX0b9-0006QM-K4
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 12:34:15 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07822
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jun 2004 12:34:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BX0b8-0000PY-KY
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 12:34:14 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BX0aB-0000A9-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 12:33:16 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BX0ZR-0007id-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 12:32:29 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i56GUZr00443
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Sun, 6 Jun 2004 12:30:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i56GTs7C004205
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Sun, 6 Jun 2004 12:29:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from cm218-253-137-126.hkcable.com.hk(218.253.137.126) by
	nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAt1aaki; Sun, 6 Jun 04 12:29:50 -0400
X-Message-Info: 12O2JAmh40bTLKzdB50EK270xTvLV6
Received: from 173.154.50.235 by
	vermin83-no14.micronesia19.ipsec@lists.tislabs.com with DAV; 
	Tue, 08 Jun 2004 22:39:38 +0500
Message-ID: <38462299925082269120.74046@ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
X-Originating-IP: [183.220.250.134]
X-Originating-Email: [ipsec@lists.tislabs.com]
X-Sender: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
From: "Mayra Lacy" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 13:34:38 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Ipsec deficit 14 mirrors
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Mayra Lacy <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1813421904=="
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

--===============1813421904==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="--=_AzsntI86kjRm"

----=_AzsntI86kjRm
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-1068-9"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

Ipsec,"

valiumXanaxCialis and_more
Get Hydrocodone, or Soma.^
2 of the best pain killers out!
please LQQk~

http://www.545.weeds2181biz.us/b12

--
limestone pose ding anthracnose lyman arcane photolysis artie shatterproof crow chaos catlike .

----=_AzsntI86kjRm--


--===============1813421904==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============1813421904==--


From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jun  6 10:43:08 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i56Hh6T2072869;
	Sun, 6 Jun 2004 10:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BX1cC-000203-L1; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 13:39:24 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BX1XI-0000zE-Vb
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 13:34:21 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10202
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jun 2004 13:34:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BX1XH-0001ig-Uu
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 13:34:20 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BX1WL-0001RE-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 13:33:21 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BX1VE-00012I-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 13:32:13 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i56HUHr16166
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Sun, 6 Jun 2004 13:30:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i56HTX9K017711
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Sun, 6 Jun 2004 13:29:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mxout2.netvision.net.il(194.90.9.21) by nutshell.tislabs.com
	via csmap (V6.0) id srcAAAr1ayJI; Sun, 6 Jun 04 13:29:30 -0400
Received: from [217.132.90.91] by mxout2.netvision.net.il
	(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.21 (built Sep  8 2003))
	with ESMTP id <0HYW007W7E183E@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for
	ipsec@lists.tislabs.com; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 20:31:56 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 20:32:01 +0300
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@netvision.net.il>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] spam
In-reply-to: <87pt8fysjy.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
To: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Message-id: <6B5C5093-B7DF-11D8-8E09-000393AD410A@netvision.net.il>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <87pt8fysjy.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Strangely, yours is the only post my email client thought was that.  It 
might be because you actually used the s-word.

Anyway, as has been pointed out before, the letters mostly seem to 
originate from legitimate subscribers.  The emails and names can easily 
be harvested from web archives and other methods.  Since SMTP is 
basically insecure, anyone can pretend to be a list member and send 
this stuff to the list.

On 04/06/2004, at 23:30, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

>
> Is there a reason posting to this list can't be restricted to
> subscribers? The s-am levels are insane.
>
> Perry
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipsec mailing list
> Ipsec@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jun  6 11:22:42 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i56IMaLW077006;
	Sun, 6 Jun 2004 11:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BX2BU-0000m3-RD; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 14:15:52 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BX28A-0008T9-1n
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 14:12:26 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA11631
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jun 2004 14:12:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BX288-0004g7-Vf
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 14:12:24 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BX27G-0004PC-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 14:11:31 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BX26n-00047w-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 14:11:01 -0400
Received: from 80-218-138-160.dclient.hispeed.ch
	(80-218-138-160.dclient.hispeed.ch [80.218.138.160])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i56I94r25936;
	Sun, 6 Jun 2004 14:09:04 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Info: RR6HEK3NQdtsm83ziYPPaiZFT4PNC42hlKqwxXPQ8
Received: from dns4yahoo.com ([177.31.98.26]) by
	rn0-7955.ipsec@lists.tislabs.com with Microsoft
	SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3128); Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:12:28 +0500
Received: (from germicide@localhost)
	by genii1.ipsec@lists.tislabs.com (3.48.8/5.93.4) id co26MAkH071025;
	Sun, 06 Jun 2004 18:13:28 -0100
Message-ID: <324601151012.13628@ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Jaime Juarez" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 13:08:28 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.3 required=5.0 tests=BIZ_TLD, CLICK_BELOW, HTML_70_80,
	HTML_LINK_CLICK_HERE,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TAG_EXISTS_TBODY,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY,MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Supersavings on all pain medications - No prescription
	required
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Jaime Juarez <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0784033473=="
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

--===============0784033473==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="--8157662530075372317"

----8157662530075372317
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-4121-1"
Content-Description: prayerful big4850.arclength
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>biota adenosine diode sprague tyler virile diana vicar 

bub  type cursor barley sprig cut chordal rag ellipse 

colony</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY vLink=#990000 aLink=#990000 link=#990000 bgColor=#ffffff>

<DIV><BR></DIV>&nbsp; 
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 borderColorDark=#000000 width=657 align=center 
borderColorLight=#000000 border=1>

  <TBODY>
  <TR bgColor=#cccccc>
    <TD borderColor=#000000 width=157 bgColor=#ffffff rowSpan=4>
      <DIV align=center><IMG 
      src="http://since.a6.owner187pill.biz/pills/p-docs1.jpg"></DIV></TD>
    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.luminance.com"></A>
      <DIV align=center><STRONG><FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Prozac</FONT>&nbsp;</STRONG></DIV></TD>
    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.convenient.net"></A>
      <DIV align=center><STRONG>&nbsp;<FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">V<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>agra</FONT></STRONG></DIV></TD>

    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.krakow.org"></A>
      <DIV align=center><STRONG>&nbsp;<FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Phe<A 
      href="http://www.adsorbate.net"></A>nterm<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>ne</FONT></STRONG></DIV></TD>
    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.dickey.org"></A>
      <DIV align=center><STRONG>&nbsp;<FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So<A 
      href="http://www.antagonistic.com"></A>ma</FONT></STRONG></DIV></TD></TR>
  <TR bgColor=#ffffff>
    <TD><A href="http://www.deliquescent.com"></A>

      <DIV align=center><IMG 
      src="http://arpeggio.a6.owner187pill.biz/pills/p-zac.gif"></DIV></TD>
    <TD><A href="http://www.corrode.org"></A>
      <DIV align=center><IMG src="http://mallow.a6.owner187pill.biz/pills/pres-via.gif"></DIV></TD>
    <TD><A href="http://www.virulent.com"></A>
      <DIV align=center><IMG 
      src="http://cartilage.a6.owner187pill.biz/pills/p-phnt.gif"></DIV></TD>
    <TD><A href="http://www.silas.net"></A>
      <DIV align=center><IMG 
    src="http://chamomile.a6.owner187pill.biz/pills/p-som.gif"></DIV></TD></TR>
  <TR bgColor=#cccccc>
    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.respect.com"></A>

      <DIV align=center><STRONG><FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">&nbsp;Amb<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>en</FONT></STRONG></DIV></TD>
    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.owe.org"></A>
      <DIV align=center><STRONG><FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Val<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>um</FONT>&nbsp;</STRONG></DIV></TD>
    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.bergson.org"></A>
      <DIV align=center><STRONG>&nbsp;<FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">C<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>alis</FONT></STRONG></DIV></TD>

    <TD vAlign=center width=125><A href="http://www.mardi.net"></A>
      <DIV align=center><STRONG>&nbsp;<FONT 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Xa<A 
      href="http://www.invitation.com"></A>nax</FONT></STRONG></DIV></TD></TR>
  <TR bgColor=#ffffff>
    <TD><A href="http://www.medicate.net"></A>
      <DIV align=center><IMG 
      src="http://somali.a6.owner187pill.biz/pills/p-amb.gif"></DIV></TD>
    <TD><A href="http://www.troutman.com"></A>
      <DIV align=center><IMG 
      src="http://deviant.a6.owner187pill.biz/pills/p-val.gif"></DIV></TD>
    <TD><A href="http://www.barricade.com"></A>

      <DIV align=center><IMG 
      src="http://holler.a6.owner187pill.biz/pills/p-cls.jpg"></DIV></TD>
    <TD><A href="http://www.charlemagne.com"></A>
      <DIV align=center><IMG 
    src="http://harrow.a6.owner187pill.biz/pills/p-xan.gif"></DIV></TD></TR>
  <TR borderColor=#000000>
    <TD colSpan=5 height=10></TD></TR>
  <TR bgColor=#0066ff>
    <TD borderColor=#000000 width=407 bgColor=#0066ff colSpan=3 rowSpan=6>
      <DIV align=center><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 24px" 
      face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff>Get ov<A 
      href="http://www.mynah.org"></A>er 300 medicat<B><FONT 
      size=3>l</FONT></B>ons online sh<B><FONT size=3>l</FONT></B>pp<A 
      href="http://www.armstrong.com"></A>ed over<A 
      href="http://www.willowy.net"></A>nig<A 
      href="http://www.batont.org"></A>ht to your fr<A 
      href="http://www.slid.org"></A>ont do<A 
      href="http://www.wishbone.com"></A>or with no pr<A 
      href="http://www.regulate.net"></A>escr<B><FONT 
      size=3>l</FONT></B>ption.</FONT></FONT></DIV></TD>

    <TD vAlign=center borderColor=#0066ff align=middle width=250 colSpan=2>
      <DIV align=left><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" 
      color=#00ffff size=3><STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*</STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;No 
      Prescr<FONT size=2>l</FONT>pt<FONT 
      size=2>l</FONT>on&nbsp;Needed</FONT></DIV></TD></TR>
  <TR>
    <TD vAlign=center borderColor=#0066ff align=middle bgColor=#0066ff 
colSpan=2>
      <DIV align=left><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" 
      color=#00ffff size=3><STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*</STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;Fully 
      Conf<FONT size=2>l</FONT>dential</FONT></DIV></TD></TR>

  <TR>
    <TD vAlign=center borderColor=#0066ff align=middle bgColor=#0066ff 
colSpan=2>
      <DIV align=left><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" 
      color=#00ffff size=3><STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*</STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;No 
      Embarrassment</FONT></DIV>
      <DIV align=left></DIV></TD></TR>
  <TR>
    <TD vAlign=center borderColor=#0066ff align=middle bgColor=#0066ff 
colSpan=2>
      <DIV align=left><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" 
      color=#00ffff size=3><STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*</STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;No 
      Waiting Rooms</FONT></DIV></TD></TR>

  <TR>
    <TD vAlign=center borderColor=#0066ff align=middle bgColor=#0066ff 
colSpan=2>
      <DIV align=left><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" 
      color=#00ffff 
      size=3><STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*</STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;Sh<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>pped Overn<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>ght</FONT></DIV></TD></TR>
  <TR>
    <TD vAlign=center borderColor=#0066ff align=middle bgColor=#0066ff 
colSpan=2>
      <DIV align=left><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" 
      color=#00ffff 
      size=3><STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*</STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;D<FONT 
      style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">l</FONT>screet Packaging</FONT></DIV></TD></TR>

  <TR borderColor=#ffffff bgColor=#ffffff>
    <TD colSpan=5 height=10></TD></TR>
  <TR borderColor=#000000 bgColor=#cccccc>
    <TD colSpan=5 height=40>
      <DIV align=center><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" 
      color=#000000><A href="http://owner187pill.biz/g09"><STRONG>Click 
      Here For Information</STRONG></A></FONT></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P align=center><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1>If y<A 
href="http://www.cellulose.net"></A>ou wi<A href="http://www.grasp.net"></A>sh for 
em<A href="http://www.pulitzer.org"></A>ail el<A 
href="http://www.pride.org"></A>imin<A 
href="http://www.toledo.org"></A>atio<A 
href="http://www.beak.org"></A>n, you can do so <A 
href="http://etymology.owner187pill.biz/unsubscribe.ddd">here.</A></FONT></P>

<P>&nbsp;</P><BR>
<P>&nbsp;</P><BR>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P> rug bedimmed drudge burton freetown steradian interpret checksum 

cryptanalyst eavesdropper
 addressee billion mantic theft portend sparge compacter innocuous millennia 

whitehead
 impure ix bade industrial across cookery attach deconvolve sabine 

sung
 pennsylvania granular irresolute dogwood admonition alger maxim permutation swift 

external
 karp eliot emitter barton committeewomen ephemeris azure moen crave 

doorkeep
 rex shire max laud bonnie caliper beryllium sparta syringa 

oleander
 equidistant trojan unwieldy ado glutton daughter participate sanatorium tracery 

buttonweed
 shrunken montmartre iraq cosmic headlight barge ursula tread deplete 

crowbait
 exception augment prairie capacious nation persistent sling ascetic coal 

hypoactiveeyesore surprise distributor angie hellebore decertify authoritarian shipbuild donaldson 

fritillary
 complaisant cluck harrington larkspur shack q unanimity dynamic intake 

cannonball
 corpsman masque demolish orono upper cab afoul cyclist dustbin 

fungus
 lack nordhoff callus ingenuity bourn xerox delve lipton berate 

restaurant
 gretchen templeton frowzy herein cupric berate physic preemptor montrachet 

fibonacci
 procreate corral byline avaricious button bloodstain daytime inward barrage 

pax
 whittaker bufflehead buss human booklet stall decide jerusalem faucet 

mcfadden 
</BODY></HTML>


----8157662530075372317--


--===============0784033473==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============0784033473==--


From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jun  6 13:53:32 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i56KrVx3091057;
	Sun, 6 Jun 2004 13:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BX4bv-0008Lt-BP; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:51:19 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BX4TS-0006eB-Uq
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:42:35 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19238
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jun 2004 16:42:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BX4TR-00011u-EN
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:42:33 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BX4SV-0000iR-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:41:35 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BX4Rb-0000PS-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:40:39 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i56Kclr03266;
	Sun, 6 Jun 2004 16:38:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i56Kc4sW028567;
	Sun, 6 Jun 2004 16:38:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rs9.luxsci.com(66.216.98.59) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap
	(V6.0) id srcAAAKvaGW3; Sun, 6 Jun 04 16:38:01 -0400
Received: from rs9.luxsci.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by rs9.luxsci.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i56KeWYe004579
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NOT); 
	Sun, 6 Jun 2004 15:40:32 -0500
Received: (from root@localhost)
	by rs9.luxsci.com (8.12.11/8.12.10/Submit) id i56Kc1Um004281;
	Sun, 6 Jun 2004 20:38:01 GMT
Message-Id: <200406062038.i56Kc1Um004281@rs9.luxsci.com>
Received: from ietf-wd@v6security.com by LuxSci SMTP Remailer;
	Sun, 06 Jun 2004 20:38:01 +0000
From: "William Dixon" <ietf-wd@v6security.com>
To: "'Yoav Nir'" <ynir@netvision.net.il>,
        "'Perry E. Metzger'" <perry@piermont.com>
Subject: RE: [Ipsec] spam
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 16:37:04 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-reply-to: <6B5C5093-B7DF-11D8-8E09-000393AD410A@netvision.net.il>
X-Lux-Comment: LuxSci remailer message ID code - 1086554281-6487241.75219303
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER 
	autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com, ipsec-owner@lists.tislabs.com
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

I agree. The best option is to get our current hoster to filter spam and
viruses for this list. I assume TIS does this for other lists, so I'd hope
there isn't an additional cost. But if there's a cost, I can contribute
some. I'd also be happy to go through the pain of changing the list name and
resubscribing, and finding another list hoster if TIS can't provide
filtering. I've noticed I've received s-word email within 1-2 hours of
posting. That's ridiculous.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Yoav Nir
> Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 1:32 PM
> To: Perry E. Metzger
> Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
> Subject: Re: [Ipsec] spam
> 
> Strangely, yours is the only post my email client thought was 
> that.  It might be because you actually used the s-word.
> 
> Anyway, as has been pointed out before, the letters mostly 
> seem to originate from legitimate subscribers.  The emails 
> and names can easily be harvested from web archives and other 
> methods.  Since SMTP is basically insecure, anyone can 
> pretend to be a list member and send this stuff to the list.
> 
> On 04/06/2004, at 23:30, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> 
> >
> > Is there a reason posting to this list can't be restricted to 
> > subscribers? The s-am levels are insane.
> >
> > Perry
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ipsec mailing list
> > Ipsec@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ipsec mailing list
> Ipsec@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
> 
> 


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jun  6 21:25:46 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i574PjXE068285;
	Sun, 6 Jun 2004 21:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXBaI-0006jN-Sq; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:18:06 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXBV2-00051o-ON
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:12:41 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05912
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 00:12:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXBV0-00041O-Pz
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:12:38 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXBTy-0003dZ-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:11:35 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXBT1-0003G5-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:10:35 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5748gr15794
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 00:08:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i57480kP005073
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 00:08:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from snark.piermont.com(166.84.151.72) by nutshell.tislabs.com via
	csmap (V6.0) id srcAAAcOay5j; Mon, 7 Jun 04 00:07:59 -0400
Received: by snark.piermont.com (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 34B73D97CF; Mon,  7 Jun 2004 00:10:32 -0400 (EDT)
To: Yoav Nir <ynir@netvision.net.il>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] spam
References: <87pt8fysjy.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
	<6B5C5093-B7DF-11D8-8E09-000393AD410A@netvision.net.il>
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:10:32 -0400
In-Reply-To: <6B5C5093-B7DF-11D8-8E09-000393AD410A@netvision.net.il> (Yoav
	Nir's message of "Sun, 06 Jun 2004 20:32:01 +0300")
Message-ID: <877juknh3b.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org


Yoav Nir <ynir@netvision.net.il> writes:
> Anyway, as has been pointed out before, the letters mostly seem to
> originate from legitimate subscribers.  The emails and names can
> easily be harvested from web archives and other methods.  Since SMTP
> is basically insecure, anyone can pretend to be a list member and send
> this stuff to the list.

However, those of us who run mailing lists find that although anyone
"can" forge a list member's address, it is almost unheard of that it
actually happens. Restricting my lists to subscribers only has
eliminated 100% of the spam going to them.

As for the problem of people who would like to post from an address
other than the one they subscribe from, as I've noted, mailman, which
is already used to manage this list, can handle that trivially, so this
isn't a problem, either.

I'm a subscriber to several hundred mailing lists (yes, really) and
all but a handful of them restrict posting to subscribers.

Perry

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jun  6 21:28:56 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i574SrsO069410;
	Sun, 6 Jun 2004 21:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXBau-0006x5-Js; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:18:44 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXBX5-0005d9-IF
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:14:47 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA06009
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 00:14:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXBX3-0004s7-HG
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:14:45 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXBWD-0004YM-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:13:54 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXBUH-0003vp-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:11:53 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i574A0r15945;
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 00:10:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5749IRu005281;
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 00:09:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from unknown(140.239.227.29) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAdTaaqk; Mon, 7 Jun 04 00:09:17 -0400
Received: from dsl092-109-027.nyc2.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.109.27]
	helo=thunk.org)
	authenticated as tytso by thunker.thunk.org with asmtp 
	(tls_cipher TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)  (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1BXBLF-0005iE-00; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:02:33 -0400
Received: from tytso by thunk.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1BXBLD-0000jE-1g; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:02:31 -0400
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 00:02:30 -0400
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: William Dixon <ietf-wd@v6security.com>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] spam
Message-ID: <20040607040230.GA2792@thunk.org>
References: <6B5C5093-B7DF-11D8-8E09-000393AD410A@netvision.net.il>
	<200406062038.i56Kc1Um004281@rs9.luxsci.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200406062038.i56Kc1Um004281@rs9.luxsci.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com, "'Yoav Nir'" <ynir@netvision.net.il>,
        ipsec-owner@lists.tislabs.com,
        "'Perry E. Metzger'" <perry@piermont.com>
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 04:37:04PM -0400, William Dixon wrote:
> I agree. The best option is to get our current hoster to filter spam and
> viruses for this list. I assume TIS does this for other lists, so I'd hope
> there isn't an additional cost. But if there's a cost, I can contribute
> some. I'd also be happy to go through the pain of changing the list name and
> resubscribing, and finding another list hoster if TIS can't provide
> filtering. I've noticed I've received s-word email within 1-2 hours of
> posting. That's ridiculous.

We're actually using ipsec@ietf.org, actually.  The
ipsec@lists.tislabs.com address was just there for backwards
compatibility.  And ietf.org is supposedly using spamassassin as well,
but apparently it's not tuned particularly well.

What we can do is get rid of the forwarding, which might help for a
little while (until the spammers adapt).  

						- Ted

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jun  6 21:52:48 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i574qkYe078678;
	Sun, 6 Jun 2004 21:52:47 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXC4U-00065L-KM; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:49:18 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXC3P-0005jC-FT
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:48:11 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA07547
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 00:48:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: hugh@toad.com
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXC3N-0007WV-DN
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:48:09 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXC1K-0006xQ-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:46:03 -0400
Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXC0Q-0006Lw-03
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:45:07 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BXBvi-0003Gx-BW
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:40:14 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i574cEr21898
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 00:38:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i574bURk010972
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 00:37:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200406070437.i574bURk010972@nutshell.tislabs.com>
Received: from unknown(211.87.231.104) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAY8aqwv; Mon, 7 Jun 04 00:37:21 -0400
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:31:52 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="60314100"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.1 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40, HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED, 
	HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] hi
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

--60314100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

i'm waiting

--60314100
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="attachment.zip.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="attachment.zip.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: attachment.zip<br>
Virus name: W32/Netsky.b@MM!zip</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


--60314100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--60314100--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jun  6 23:47:28 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i576lP3Z047864;
	Sun, 6 Jun 2004 23:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXDk1-0002TC-GH; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 02:36:17 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXDih-0002DJ-QP
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 02:34:56 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA25965
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 02:34:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXDif-0004Nx-9Y
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 02:34:53 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXDhi-00044f-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 02:33:55 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXDgt-0003lX-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 02:33:03 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i576VAr23123
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 02:31:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i576USDA009133
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 02:30:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from michael.checkpoint.com(194.29.32.68) by nutshell.tislabs.com
	via csmap (V6.0) id srcAAALlaOYr; Mon, 7 Jun 04 02:30:25 -0400
Received: from [194.29.46.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by michael.checkpoint.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
	i576Wvs03020; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:32:57 +0300 (IDT)
In-Reply-To: <877juknh3b.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
References: <87pt8fysjy.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
	<6B5C5093-B7DF-11D8-8E09-000393AD410A@netvision.net.il>
	<877juknh3b.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <8375854B-B84C-11D8-BB95-000A95834BAA@checkpoint.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] spam
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:32:56 +0300
To: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com, Yoav Nir <ynir@netvision.net.il>
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Lots of the virii we get appear to come from uri at lucent dot com, who 
I know is a legitimate subscriber because he posts real messages.  I 
don't know about hugh at toad dot com, but that's only because he 
doesn't post.  He might very well be a legitimate lurker.

On Jun 7, 2004, at 7:10 AM, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

>
> Yoav Nir <ynir@netvision.net.il> writes:
>> Anyway, as has been pointed out before, the letters mostly seem to
>> originate from legitimate subscribers.  The emails and names can
>> easily be harvested from web archives and other methods.  Since SMTP
>> is basically insecure, anyone can pretend to be a list member and send
>> this stuff to the list.
>
> However, those of us who run mailing lists find that although anyone
> "can" forge a list member's address, it is almost unheard of that it
> actually happens. Restricting my lists to subscribers only has
> eliminated 100% of the spam going to them.
>
> As for the problem of people who would like to post from an address
> other than the one they subscribe from, as I've noted, mailman, which
> is already used to manage this list, can handle that trivially, so this
> isn't a problem, either.
>
> I'm a subscriber to several hundred mailing lists (yes, really) and
> all but a handful of them restrict posting to subscribers.
>
> Perry
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipsec mailing list
> Ipsec@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun  7 01:13:09 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i578D8lZ081262;
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 01:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXFCz-0005Av-RF; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 04:10:17 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXF8E-00049F-5R
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 04:05:22 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA00214
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 04:05:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXF8B-0004Dk-PE
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 04:05:19 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXF7K-0003rT-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 04:04:26 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXF6a-0003Ua-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 04:03:40 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5781mr12964
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 04:01:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i578163u029807
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 04:01:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ool-18e40942.dyn.optonline.net(24.228.9.66) by
	nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAjbaOm6; Mon, 7 Jun 04 04:01:00 -0400
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 04:03:44 -0500
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Uri" <uri@lucent.com>
Message-ID: <xnotkfoinrvkrxlbjmm@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------jijlijwneaxjhqcsjyag"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Re: Incoming Message
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------jijlijwneaxjhqcsjyag
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
  

<br>
</body></html>

----------jijlijwneaxjhqcsjyag
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="You_will_answer_to_me.hta.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="You_will_answer_to_me.hta.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: You_will_answer_to_me.hta<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM!vbs</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------jijlijwneaxjhqcsjyag
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------jijlijwneaxjhqcsjyag--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun  7 05:27:06 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i57CR52q040418;
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 05:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXJ4t-0001IB-Am; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:18:11 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXJ1G-000086-Kz
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:14:26 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA10138
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:14:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXJ1F-0004VZ-Qw
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:14:25 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXIzs-0003e4-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:13:00 -0400
Received: from [61.95.203.84] (helo=BLR-MAIL.NETD.COM)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXIya-00035S-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:11:40 -0400
Received: from netd.com ([10.91.0.37])
	by BLR-MAIL.NETD.COM (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i57CBUxV010310;
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:41:31 +0530
Message-ID: <40C45C9D.4040207@netd.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 17:46:29 +0530
From: "M.Chenna kesava Reddy" <mcreddy@netd.com>
Organization: Net Devices
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
	rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipsec@ietf.org
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040601142755.0331cf58@10.1.5.10>
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040601142755.0331cf58@10.1.5.10>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-NetD-India-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the NetD-India Sysadmin
	for more information
X-NetD-India-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: [Ipsec] Qos issue related to rfc2401bis
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mcreddy@netd.com
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Hi All,
In section 4.1 it says that IPsec implementation must permit 
establishment and maintanance of
multiple SA's between a given sender and receiver,with the same 
selectors, it means to say that, do
we need to create the SA's according to the flow and class of service as 
adding one parameter in the
 SA whitch indicates class of service and will be searched for SA for an 
inbound packet.
How can it be locally determined, is it QOS will be done first on the 
IKE packets or any other
mechanism will be avilable to do this.

Thx
mcreddy





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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun  7 05:27:09 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i57CR8w1040438;
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 05:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXJ4u-0001IJ-5P; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:18:12 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXJ1H-000089-JY
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:14:27 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA10141
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:14:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXJ1H-0004Vo-19
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:14:27 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXIzw-0003jO-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:13:05 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXIyh-00036q-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:11:48 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i57C9sU01684
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:09:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i57C9C5F025606
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:09:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from unknown(61.95.203.84) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAjiaW_X; Mon, 7 Jun 04 08:09:09 -0400
Received: from netd.com ([10.91.0.37])
	by BLR-MAIL.NETD.COM (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i57CBUxV010310;
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:41:31 +0530
Message-ID: <40C45C9D.4040207@netd.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 17:46:29 +0530
From: "M.Chenna kesava Reddy" <mcreddy@netd.com>
Organization: Net Devices
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
	rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipsec@ietf.org
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040601142755.0331cf58@10.1.5.10>
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040601142755.0331cf58@10.1.5.10>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-NetD-India-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the NetD-India Sysadmin
	for more information
X-NetD-India-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: [Ipsec] Qos issue related to rfc2401bis
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mcreddy@netd.com
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Hi All,
In section 4.1 it says that IPsec implementation must permit 
establishment and maintanance of
multiple SA's between a given sender and receiver,with the same 
selectors, it means to say that, do
we need to create the SA's according to the flow and class of service as 
adding one parameter in the
 SA whitch indicates class of service and will be searched for SA for an 
inbound packet.
How can it be locally determined, is it QOS will be done first on the 
IKE packets or any other
mechanism will be avilable to do this.

Thx
mcreddy





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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun  7 05:37:12 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i57CbB5L041611;
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 05:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXJID-0004ms-Pr; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:31:57 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXJ9i-000251-0Q
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:23:10 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA10802
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:23:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXJ9h-0000bS-G7
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:23:09 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXJ8i-0000D7-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:22:09 -0400
Received: from [61.95.203.84] (helo=BLR-MAIL.NETD.COM)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXJ7b-0007Dq-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:21:00 -0400
Received: from netd.com ([10.91.0.37])
	by BLR-MAIL.NETD.COM (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i57CKhxV010743;
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:50:44 +0530
Message-ID: <40C45EC6.80402@netd.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 17:55:42 +0530
From: "M.Chenna kesava Reddy" <mcreddy@netd.com>
Organization: Net Devices
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
	rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipsec <ipsec@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-NetD-India-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the NetD-India Sysadmin
	for more information
X-NetD-India-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: tislabs <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
Subject: [Ipsec] Is there any document whitch extensively discusses on ipsec
 implementation in freeBSD
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mcreddy@netd.com
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Hi All,
Is there any document avilable  whitch will give detailed description of 
Ipsec flow of packet
in FreeBSD.

Thx
mcreddy



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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun  7 05:39:53 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i57CdqRx042681;
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 05:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXJIE-0004my-IC; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:31:58 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXJ9i-000253-Nq
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:23:10 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA10805
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:23:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXJ9i-0000bX-6b
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:23:10 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXJ8j-0000DF-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:22:09 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXJ7k-0007aV-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 08:21:08 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i57CJEU04129
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:19:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i57CIW7K026846
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:18:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from unknown(61.95.203.84) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAgPaOA0; Mon, 7 Jun 04 08:18:29 -0400
Received: from netd.com ([10.91.0.37])
	by BLR-MAIL.NETD.COM (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i57CKhxV010743;
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:50:44 +0530
Message-ID: <40C45EC6.80402@netd.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 17:55:42 +0530
From: "M.Chenna kesava Reddy" <mcreddy@netd.com>
Organization: Net Devices
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
	rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipsec <ipsec@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-NetD-India-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the NetD-India Sysadmin
	for more information
X-NetD-India-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: tislabs <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
Subject: [Ipsec] Is there any document whitch extensively discusses on ipsec
 implementation in freeBSD
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mcreddy@netd.com
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Hi All,
Is there any document avilable  whitch will give detailed description of 
Ipsec flow of packet
in FreeBSD.

Thx
mcreddy



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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun  7 07:11:25 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i57EBPNw056365;
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 07:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXKdr-0003Hp-FF; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 09:58:23 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXKW7-000111-LX
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 09:50:23 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15714
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:50:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXKW7-0007O5-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 09:50:23 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXKVA-0006xw-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 09:49:24 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXKUW-0006Z2-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 09:48:45 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i57DkmU26637
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:46:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i57Dk8Cc010165
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:46:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from snark.piermont.com(166.84.151.72) by nutshell.tislabs.com via
	csmap (V6.0) id srcAAAMqaq2t; Mon, 7 Jun 04 09:46:06 -0400
Received: by snark.piermont.com (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id EAFF6D97CF; Mon,  7 Jun 2004 09:48:39 -0400 (EDT)
To: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] spam
References: <87pt8fysjy.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
	<6B5C5093-B7DF-11D8-8E09-000393AD410A@netvision.net.il>
	<877juknh3b.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
	<8375854B-B84C-11D8-BB95-000A95834BAA@checkpoint.com>
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 09:48:39 -0400
In-Reply-To: <8375854B-B84C-11D8-BB95-000A95834BAA@checkpoint.com> (Yoav
	Nir's message of "Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:32:56 +0300")
Message-ID: <87r7srmqbs.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com, Yoav Nir <ynir@netvision.net.il>
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org


Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> writes:
> Lots of the virii we get appear to come from uri at lucent dot com,

The viruses are trivially stopped by blocking all the vulnerable
microsoft file types, such as .exe and .zip. I don't see such postings
because my hosts already block them.

Perry

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun  7 07:24:28 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i57EOPQc057632;
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 07:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXKvE-0003Tx-H0; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:16:20 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXKqY-0001HG-55
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:11:32 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17474
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:11:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXKqX-00010u-1T
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:11:29 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXKpY-0000aI-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:10:29 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXKoo-0000AM-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:09:42 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i57E7eU03770
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:07:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i57E6u1j013053
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:06:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sadr.equallogic.com(66.155.203.134) by nutshell.tislabs.com via
	csmap (V6.0) id srcAAAmCaWEz; Mon, 7 Jun 04 10:06:52 -0400
Received: from sadr.equallogic.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by sadr.equallogic.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i57E9QAT031665
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:09:26 -0400
Received: from M30.equallogic.com (m30 [172.16.1.30])
	by sadr.equallogic.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id i57E9QjV031660;
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:09:26 -0400
Received: from pkoning.equallogic.com ([172.16.1.249]) by M30.equallogic.com
	with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); 
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:09:26 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <16580.30484.622649.604495@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:09:24 -0400
From: Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>
To: perry@piermont.com
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] spam
References: <87pt8fysjy.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
	<6B5C5093-B7DF-11D8-8E09-000393AD410A@netvision.net.il>
	<877juknh3b.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 14) "Reasonable Discussion" XEmacs Lucid
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jun 2004 14:09:26.0174 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[0A6B7BE0:01C44C99]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com, ynir@netvision.net.il
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

>>>>> "Perry" == Perry E Metzger <perry@piermont.com> writes:

 Perry> Yoav Nir <ynir@netvision.net.il> writes:
 >> Anyway, as has been pointed out before, the letters mostly seem to
 >> originate from legitimate subscribers.  The emails and names can
 >> easily be harvested from web archives and other methods.  Since
 >> SMTP is basically insecure, anyone can pretend to be a list member
 >> and send this stuff to the list.

 Perry> However, those of us who run mailing lists find that although
 Perry> anyone "can" forge a list member's address, it is almost
 Perry> unheard of that it actually happens. Restricting my lists to
 Perry> subscribers only has eliminated 100% of the spam going to
 Perry> them.

That certainly would not be true for the IPsec list -- I've looked
over enough IPsec message headers to say that.  FOr IPsec, the
percentage of forged addresses is clearly quite large.

     paul



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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun  7 07:36:42 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i57EaexT059118;
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 07:36:42 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXL9v-0000UC-Jv; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:31:31 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXL6H-0007UJ-Rx
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:27:45 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA19143
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:27:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXL6G-0000dj-N2
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:27:44 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXL4a-0007YR-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:26:00 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXL3F-00070c-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:24:37 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i57EMeU09192
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:22:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i57ELxEv015210
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:21:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from unknown(193.136.195.3) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAOOaOMD; Mon, 7 Jun 04 10:21:54 -0400
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 15:30:09 +0000
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Kivinen" <kivinen@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <bhqqlexgukqyxiewhyt@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------wknnazvkumoaeznpgkgr"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Re: Document
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------wknnazvkumoaeznpgkgr
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
  

<br>
</body></html>

----------wknnazvkumoaeznpgkgr
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="Information.cpl.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="Information.cpl.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: Information.cpl<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------wknnazvkumoaeznpgkgr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------wknnazvkumoaeznpgkgr--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun  7 09:02:43 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i57G2fUX069064;
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXMQt-0003GG-Fo; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:53:07 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXMFe-0000d7-0l
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:41:30 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24577
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 11:41:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXMFd-0004MO-3w
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:41:29 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXMDx-0003Qa-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:39:45 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXMCz-0002tC-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:38:45 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i57FaoU02196
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 11:36:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i57Fa94j025620
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 11:36:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from snark.piermont.com(166.84.151.72) by nutshell.tislabs.com via
	csmap (V6.0) id srcAAAu3aacY; Mon, 7 Jun 04 11:36:07 -0400
Received: by snark.piermont.com (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 0408CD97CF; Mon,  7 Jun 2004 11:38:41 -0400 (EDT)
To: Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] spam
References: <87pt8fysjy.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
	<6B5C5093-B7DF-11D8-8E09-000393AD410A@netvision.net.il>
	<877juknh3b.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
	<16580.30484.622649.604495@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:38:40 -0400
In-Reply-To: <16580.30484.622649.604495@gargle.gargle.HOWL> (Paul Koning's
	message of "Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:09:24 -0400")
Message-ID: <874qpnz8cf.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com, ynir@netvision.net.il
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org


Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com> writes:
>  Perry> However, those of us who run mailing lists find that although
>  Perry> anyone "can" forge a list member's address, it is almost
>  Perry> unheard of that it actually happens. Restricting my lists to
>  Perry> subscribers only has eliminated 100% of the spam going to
>  Perry> them.
>
> That certainly would not be true for the IPsec list -- I've looked
> over enough IPsec message headers to say that.  FOr IPsec, the
> percentage of forged addresses is clearly quite large.

Not if you exclude viruses. The amount of spam from forged addresses
is nil -- the virus activity is separate.

However, the viruses are trivially blocked with a rule matching a
regular expression like this:

/^Content-(Type|Disposition):.*(file)?name=.*\.(asd|bat|chm|cmd|com|cpl|dll|exe|hlp|hta|js|jse|lnk|ocx|pif|rar|scr|shb|shm|shs|vb|vbe|vbs|vbx|vxd|wsf|wsh|zip)/

My machines block all email matching that regexps and as a result I
see no viruses at all.

-- 
Perry E. Metzger		perry@piermont.com

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun  7 09:27:07 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i57GR6wp072633;
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXMsJ-0002iz-SV; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:21:27 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXMh5-0007Xn-9W
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:09:51 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26025
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:09:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXMh4-0002T5-DR
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:09:50 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXMg5-0001y7-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:08:49 -0400
Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com ([192.18.98.36])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXMfL-0001Sx-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:08:03 -0400
Received: from eastmail2bur.East.Sun.COM ([129.148.13.40])
	by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i57G6LMf003946; 
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:06:21 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from thunk.east.sun.com (thunk.East.Sun.COM [129.148.174.66])
	by eastmail2bur.East.Sun.COM (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with
	ESMTP id i57G81ii017045; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:08:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from thunk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by thunk.east.sun.com (8.12.11+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id
	i57G81Wp022192; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:08:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200406071608.i57G81Wp022192@thunk.east.sun.com>
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@east.sun.com>
To: mcreddy@netd.com
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] Qos issue related to rfc2401bis 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 07 Jun 2004 17:46:29 +0530."
	<40C45C9D.4040207@netd.com> 
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:08:01 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sommerfeld@east.sun.com
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

> In section 4.1 it says that IPsec implementation must permit
> establishment and maintanance of multiple SA's between a given
> sender and receiver,with the same selectors, it means to say that,
> do we need to create the SA's according to the flow and class of
> service as adding one parameter in the SA whitch indicates class of
> service and will be searched for SA for an inbound packet.  

if you read further, you'll see that qos markings generated before
IPsec is applies are used as a pseudo-selector and get passed through
to the encrypted packet.

qos is used to select/generate multiple SA's during outbound
processing, but is ignored for ipsec purposes for inbound processing.

so it's purely a local matter for the sender.

						- Bill



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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun  7 09:28:51 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i57GSo6S072801;
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXMsK-0002jN-Uh; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:21:28 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXMhd-0007cA-9A
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:10:25 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26031
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:10:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXMhc-0002vw-7g
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:10:24 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXMgb-0002QE-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:09:21 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXMfP-0001T5-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:08:07 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i57G6DU10331
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:06:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i57G5V0f029415
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:05:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com(192.18.98.36) by nutshell.tislabs.com via
	csmap (V6.0) id srcAAApfaqC5; Mon, 7 Jun 04 12:05:30 -0400
Received: from eastmail2bur.East.Sun.COM ([129.148.13.40])
	by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i57G6LMf003946; 
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:06:21 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from thunk.east.sun.com (thunk.East.Sun.COM [129.148.174.66])
	by eastmail2bur.East.Sun.COM (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with
	ESMTP id i57G81ii017045; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:08:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from thunk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by thunk.east.sun.com (8.12.11+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id
	i57G81Wp022192; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:08:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200406071608.i57G81Wp022192@thunk.east.sun.com>
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@east.sun.com>
To: mcreddy@netd.com
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] Qos issue related to rfc2401bis 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 07 Jun 2004 17:46:29 +0530."
	<40C45C9D.4040207@netd.com> 
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:08:01 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sommerfeld@east.sun.com
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

> In section 4.1 it says that IPsec implementation must permit
> establishment and maintanance of multiple SA's between a given
> sender and receiver,with the same selectors, it means to say that,
> do we need to create the SA's according to the flow and class of
> service as adding one parameter in the SA whitch indicates class of
> service and will be searched for SA for an inbound packet.  

if you read further, you'll see that qos markings generated before
IPsec is applies are used as a pseudo-selector and get passed through
to the encrypted packet.

qos is used to select/generate multiple SA's during outbound
processing, but is ignored for ipsec purposes for inbound processing.

so it's purely a local matter for the sender.

						- Bill



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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun  7 09:45:55 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i57Gjpq8074256;
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXNAB-0007Ue-HK; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:39:55 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXN4b-000653-EW
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:34:09 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27175
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:34:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXN4a-0006Oq-7w
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:34:08 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXN2x-0005oL-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:32:28 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXN14-00053v-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:30:30 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i57GSXU16714
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:28:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i57GRqG0002749
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:27:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.aepsystems.com(193.120.108.90) by nutshell.tislabs.com via
	csmap (V6.0) id srcAAA1laqxf; Mon, 7 Jun 04 12:27:49 -0400
Received: from Aep-Mail.aep-net.com (unverified) by mailsweep.aep-net.com 
	(Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.12) with ESMTP id 
	<T6a0c920c24ac111117464@mailsweep.aep-net.com> for 
	<ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:30:31 +0100
Received: from aep-uk-dc-01.aep-net.com ([172.17.40.20]) by 
	Aep-Mail.aep-net.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC (5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 7 Jun 
	2004 17:30:31 +0100
Received: from aepsystems.com ([172.17.40.139]) by aep-uk-dc-01.aep-net.com 
	with Microsoft SMTPSVC (5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:30:30 +0100
Message-ID: <40C49865.2060102@aepsystems.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 17:31:33 +0100
From: Chris Trobridge <chris.trobridge@aepsystems.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] spam
References: <87pt8fysjy.fsf@snark.piermont.com> 
	<6B5C5093-B7DF-11D8-8E09-000393AD410A@netvision.net.il> 
	<877juknh3b.fsf@snark.piermont.com> 
	<16580.30484.622649.604495@gargle.gargle.HOWL> 
	<874qpnz8cf.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
In-Reply-To: <874qpnz8cf.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jun 2004 16:30:30.0397 (UTC) 
	FILETIME=[BF7D6AD0:01C44CAC]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=EXCUSE_16,HTML_MESSAGE,
	HTML_TITLE_EMPTY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0626925911=="
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============0626925911==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="------------060709070803070300060003"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060709070803070300060003
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Perry E. Metzger wrote:

>Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com> writes:
>  
>
>> Perry> However, those of us who run mailing lists find that although
>> Perry> anyone "can" forge a list member's address, it is almost
>> Perry> unheard of that it actually happens. Restricting my lists to
>> Perry> subscribers only has eliminated 100% of the spam going to
>> Perry> them.
>>
>>That certainly would not be true for the IPsec list -- I've looked
>>over enough IPsec message headers to say that.  FOr IPsec, the
>>percentage of forged addresses is clearly quite large.
>>    
>>
>
>Not if you exclude viruses. The amount of spam from forged addresses
>is nil -- the virus activity is separate.
>
>However, the viruses are trivially blocked with a rule matching a
>regular expression like this:
>
>/^Content-(Type|Disposition):.*(file)?name=.*\.(asd|bat|chm|cmd|com|cpl|dll|exe|hlp|hta|js|jse|lnk|ocx|pif|rar|scr|shb|shm|shs|vb|vbe|vbs|vbx|vxd|wsf|wsh|zip)/
>
>My machines block all email matching that regexps and as a result I
>see no viruses at all.
>
>  
>
What I'm seeing is that all the virused emails are being detected (by a 
Gauntlet firewall) and I'm just getting reports about the virus being 
removed.  IT says we don't run the firewall.  My guess is that it's been 
checked before it reaches the IETF list server.  The emails I've looked 
at are coming from valid addresses and are addressed to the tislab list 
address.

All the 'spam' I've seen is addressed from ipsec@lists.tislabs.com to 
the same address.

Chris



**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
*****************************************************************************


--------------060709070803070300060003
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  <title></title>
</head>
<body>
Perry E. Metzger wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid874qpnz8cf.fsf@snark.piermont.com" type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">Paul Koning <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pkoning@equallogic.com">&lt;pkoning@equallogic.com&gt;</a> writes:
  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap=""> Perry&gt; However, those of us who run mailing lists find that although
 Perry&gt; anyone "can" forge a list member's address, it is almost
 Perry&gt; unheard of that it actually happens. Restricting my lists to
 Perry&gt; subscribers only has eliminated 100% of the spam going to
 Perry&gt; them.

That certainly would not be true for the IPsec list -- I've looked
over enough IPsec message headers to say that.  FOr IPsec, the
percentage of forged addresses is clearly quite large.
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
Not if you exclude viruses. The amount of spam from forged addresses
is nil -- the virus activity is separate.

However, the viruses are trivially blocked with a rule matching a
regular expression like this:

/^Content-(Type|Disposition):.*(file)?name=.*\.(asd|bat|chm|cmd|com|cpl|dll|exe|hlp|hta|js|jse|lnk|ocx|pif|rar|scr|shb|shm|shs|vb|vbe|vbs|vbx|vxd|wsf|wsh|zip)/

My machines block all email matching that regexps and as a result I
see no viruses at all.

  </pre>
</blockquote>
What I'm seeing is that all the virused emails are being detected (by a
Gauntlet firewall) and I'm just getting reports about the virus being
removed.&nbsp; IT says we don't run the firewall.&nbsp; My guess is that it's
been checked before it reaches the IETF list server.&nbsp; The emails I've
looked at are coming from valid addresses and are addressed to the
tislab list address.<br>
<br>
All the 'spam' I've seen is addressed from <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ipsec@lists.tislabs.com">ipsec@lists.tislabs.com</a> to
the same address.<br>
<br>
Chris<br>
<br>
<FONT SIZE=3><BR>
<BR>
**********************************************************************<BR>
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and<BR>
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they<BR>
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify<BR>
the system manager.<BR>
<BR>
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.<BR>
*****************************************************************************<BR>
</FONT>
</body>
</html>

--------------060709070803070300060003--


--===============0626925911==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============0626925911==--


From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun  7 11:09:54 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i57I9reI083868;
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 11:09:53 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXOUn-0003d2-O2; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 14:05:17 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXOKa-0001Wq-RO
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 13:54:44 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01631
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 13:54:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXOKZ-00015Y-PP
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 13:54:43 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXOGj-0007Pc-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 13:50:46 -0400
Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXOFX-0006oR-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 13:49:31 -0400
Received: from [10.20.30.249] (adsl-66-125-125-65.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net
	[66.125.125.65]) (authenticated bits=0)
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i57HnNa4081775
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: phoffvpnc@mail.vpnc.org
Message-Id: <p0611042fbcea5ad0322c@[10.20.30.249]>
In-Reply-To: <40C49865.2060102@aepsystems.com>
References: <87pt8fysjy.fsf@snark.piermont.com> 
	<6B5C5093-B7DF-11D8-8E09-000393AD410A@netvision.net.il> 
	<877juknh3b.fsf@snark.piermont.com> 
	<16580.30484.622649.604495@gargle.gargle.HOWL> 
	<874qpnz8cf.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <40C49865.2060102@aepsystems.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:49:27 -0700
To: IPsec WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: END OF DISCUSSION: Re: [Ipsec] spam
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

The list admin has taken some action that should eliminate all the 
recent spam and viruses we have seen.

How about we talk about IPsec instead?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun  7 17:31:03 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i580V2FG024779;
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXUPl-0001Sc-UC; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:24:29 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXUJN-0000Bw-0C
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:17:53 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04777
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 20:17:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXUJL-0001xW-Ar
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:17:51 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXUIF-0001JN-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:16:43 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXUHC-0000cB-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:15:38 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i580DgU20784
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 20:13:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i580D1cL029038
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 20:13:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ool-18e40942.dyn.optonline.net(24.228.9.66) by
	nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAA7HayS4; Mon, 7 Jun 04 20:12:57 -0400
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:15:40 -0500
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Uri" <uri@lucent.com>
Message-ID: <bcvpctgoqjnxzfdobwd@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------znodeogkgxvvmyrqsubf"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Protected message
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------znodeogkgxvvmyrqsubf
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
 

<br>
</body></html>

----------znodeogkgxvvmyrqsubf
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="Joke.hta.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="Joke.hta.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: Joke.hta<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM!vbs</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------znodeogkgxvvmyrqsubf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------znodeogkgxvvmyrqsubf--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun  8 02:48:58 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i589mv3m070031;
	Tue, 8 Jun 2004 02:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXd83-0005ef-Gn; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 05:42:47 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXcsm-0002Mb-RH
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 05:27:00 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA14134
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 05:26:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXcsk-00027L-By
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 05:26:58 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXcrM-0001Jv-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 05:25:33 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXcq2-0000W7-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 05:24:10 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i589MGU20435
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 05:22:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i589La2d017260
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 05:21:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ool-18e40942.dyn.optonline.net(24.228.9.66) by
	nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAA4BaWSH; Tue, 8 Jun 04 05:21:32 -0400
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 05:24:18 -0500
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Uri" <uri@lucent.com>
Message-ID: <mgnxrihvnjvcpxbyvwv@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------rjhgnmliltmbndvxapei"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] RE: Message Notify
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------rjhgnmliltmbndvxapei
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
 

<br>
</body></html>

----------rjhgnmliltmbndvxapei
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="Info.hta.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="Info.hta.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: Info.hta<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM!vbs</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------rjhgnmliltmbndvxapei
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------rjhgnmliltmbndvxapei--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun  8 14:21:34 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i58LLYEm050638;
	Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXnso-0003ez-Ix; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:11:46 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXljI-00077X-PE
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 14:53:48 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15874
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:53:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXljH-0005bQ-Lx
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 14:53:47 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXliL-0004mf-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 14:52:49 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXlhl-0003wT-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 14:52:13 -0400
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from [10.32.244.18] (stealth-10-32-244-18.cisco.com [10.32.244.18])
	by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with SMTP id i58IkNiV000815
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <10553307-B97C-11D8-A46B-000A95E07B78@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
To: ipsec@ietf.org
From: Barbara Fraser <byfraser@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:45:50 -0700
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Ipsec] Message size constraint on mailing list
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Hi folks,

I just posted a note about issue 91 and it bounced back to Ted and me 
because it was larger than 40k. I manually marked it accepted but just 
want to caution everyone to try to keep messages under 40k. So don't 
include all of my message in your response :-)

thanks,
Barb


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun  8 15:34:39 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i58MYKOX060351;
	Tue, 8 Jun 2004 15:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXo0k-0005Wv-71; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:19:58 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXjo5-0001cY-Kb
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 12:50:37 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07615
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:50:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXjo4-0000Qj-HY
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 12:50:36 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXjn3-0007PI-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 12:49:37 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXjlh-0005lw-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 12:48:09 -0400
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (171.68.223.138)
	by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Jun 2004 09:47:49 -0700
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from [10.32.244.18] (stealth-10-32-244-18.cisco.com [10.32.244.18])
	by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with SMTP id i58GlWiV025525; 
	Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618)
To: ipsec@ietf.org
Message-Id: <784A6DAC-B96B-11D8-A46B-000A95E07B78@cisco.com>
From: Barbara Fraser <byfraser@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:47:03 -0700
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL, HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no 
	version=2.60
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 14:39:47 -0400
Cc: angelos@cs.columbia.edu, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>,
        Barbara Fraser <byfraser@cisco.com>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
Subject: [Ipsec] Issue 91 - ICMP error message handling
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0825482496=="
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org


--===============0825482496==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2-1031841482


--Apple-Mail-2-1031841482
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1;
	format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi folks,

We're down to what we believe is the last remaining issue for 2401bis.=20=

Once we come to closure on this issue and changes are made to the=20
document, we think we'll be finished with the work on 2401bis.

In the original 2401 there was text describing the handling of path MTU=20=

but the handling of other unprotected ICMP messages was left as a local=20=

matter.  On October 26, Karen posted the message included below that=20
proposes a more complex algorithm for handling ICMP messages.  There=20
has been little discussion to date on this so Ted and I would like to=20
propose the following:

1. Default position: if no one is interested in discussing this issue,=20=

we fall back to the text as it existed in 2401 which covers path MTU=20
but is silent on other types of unprotected ICMP messages.

2. If you believe there are deficiencies or ambiguities in the original=20=

text on path MTU in 2401 please speak up!

3. If you feel we should take a different approach, such as that=20
proposed by Karen, then start voicing your opinions.

We plan to give the working group 1 week to begin discussion on this=20
topic. If there is no discussion within 1 week, we will go with the=20
default position.  Otherwise, if discussion commences, we're willing to=20=

invest a couple of weeks to reach a consensus direction on this issue.

Note: we're aware that the issue tracker is a little toasty at the=20
moment, which is why I've included the text of Karen's Oct. 26 message=20=

below.

thanks,
Barb and Ted

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Karen Seo <kseo@bbn.com>
> Date: October 26, 2003 6:00:02 PM PST
> To: ipsec mailingList <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
> Cc: byfraser@cisco.com, tytso@mit.edu, "Angelos D. Keromytis"=20
> <angelos@cs.columbia.edu>, kivinen@ssh.fi, kseo@bbn.com
> Subject: 2401bis issue 91 -- Handling ICMP error messages
>
> Folks,
>
> Here's a description and proposed approach for handling ICMP error=20
> messages.=A0 Any mistakes/confusion are mine.=A0 Steve has again=20
> maintained plausible deniability by having out-of-town much of last=20
> week and this that prevented him from reviewing this draft :-).
>
>  Karen
>
>
> IPsec Issue #:=A0 91
>
> Title:=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Handling ICMP error messages -- =
receiving (local and
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 transit) and generating
>
>
> Description:
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> I. Receiving (local and transit) an ICMP error message -- How does an=20=

> IPsec system know whether an ICMP error message comes from a trusted=20=

> source or not?=A0 And what should it do in each case?=A0 Note: IKEv2=20=

> supports selectors for ICMP message type and code, which can be used=20=

> to classify the ICMP messages.
>
> =A0=A0 1. If it arrives without AH or ESP protection, what to do is
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 currently a matter of local policy.
>
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 We will clarify the existing text that addresses this =
case (see
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 proposed approach below.)
>
> =A0=A0 2. If an ICMP message arrives on an SA, then it must be =
consistent
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 with the selectors for the SA, otherwise it will not =
be delivered
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 (since it will fail the SA access control checks). In =
general,
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 this suggests that security gateways should establish =
a tunnel
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 mode SA between themselves to carry ICMP traffic, =
something that
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 can be accomplished using the extant SPD parameter for =
next
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 protocol. One might want to further restrict the types =
of ICMP
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 messages that are authorized to traverse an SA, using =
ICMP type
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 and code selectors. However, care still has to be =
taken when
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 processing ICMP traffic that arrives via an SA, even =
an
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ICMP-specific SA. The concern is that an ICMP message =
includes
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 what purports to be the header of the packet that =
triggered that
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ICMP message, but additional checks are needed to =
verify that the
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 returned header is consistent with the address space =
associated
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 with the SA via which the ICMP message was received. =
For example,
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 an SG for Net A might receive an ICMP Destination =
Unreachable via
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 a tunnel from the SG for Net B, but the triggering =
packet might
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 refer to an address in Net C! Thus an implementation =
needs to
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 perform consistency checks on the triggering packets =
in received
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ICMP traffic to detect and reject such behavior. =
However,
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 depending on the complexity of the network topology, =
such checks
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 may not detect all possible inconsistencies.
>
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 By using ICMP type and code, receivers can achieve =
additional
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 control in dealing with ICMP messages received on SAs.
>
> II. Generating an ICMP error message -- What should an IPsec system=20
> (host or SG) do when it generates an ICMP error message?=A0 What to do=20=

> in each case is currently a matter of local policy and could depend on=20=

> the type of ICMP error message.
>
> When it is necessary to generate an (outbound to the blackside) ICMP=20=

> error message, it is desirable to transit it via an appropriate SA,=20
> for the reasons noted above.
>
> NOTE: Generating an ICMP message in response to an ICMP message is=20
> prohibited by the ICMP protocol specifications [ICMP -- RFC 792],=20
> [ICMPv6 -- RFC 2463].
>
> NOTE: ICMP messages that are not *error* messages SHOULD be handled=20
> like any other messages.
>
> Proposed approach:
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> A. Update the 2401bis text to say:
>
> "An ICMP message not protected by AH or ESP is unauthenticated and its=20=

> processing and/or forwarding may result in denial or degradation of=20
> service.=A0 This suggests that, in general, it would be desirable to=20=

> ignore such messages. However, many ICMP messages will be received by=20=

> hosts or security gateways from unauthenticated sources, e.g., routers=20=

> in the public Internet. Ignoring these ICMP messages can degrade=20
> service, e.g., because of a failure to process PMTU message and=20
> redirection messages. Thus there is also a motivation for accepting=20
> and acting upon unauthenticated ICMP messages. To accommodate both=20
> ends of this spectrum, a compliant IPsec implementation MUST permit a=20=

> local administrator to configure an IPsec implementation to accept or=20=

> reject unauthenticated ICMP traffic.=A0 This control MUST be at the=20
> granularity of ICMP type and MAY be at the granularity of ICMP type=20
> and code.=A0 Additionally, an implementation SHOULD incorporate=20
> mechanisms and parameters for dealing with such traffic. For example,=20=

> there could be the ability to establish a minimum PMTU for traffic=20
> (perhaps on a per destination basis), to prevent receipt of an=20
> unauthenticated ICMP from setting the PMTU to a trivial size."=A0 [See=20=

> issue 78 for PMTU minimum size recommendations]
>
> "A mechanism SHOULD be provided to allow an administrator to cause=20
> ICMP messages (selected, all, none) to be logged as an aid to problem=20=

> diagnosis."
>
> Processing ICMP messages (receiving (local and transit) and =
generating)
>
> Consider a topology along the lines of:
>
> =A0
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Host=A0=A0=A0 SG=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Rtr=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0 SG=A0=A0=A0=A0 Host
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 X =3D=3D=3D A=A0 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D B=A0 =
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D C =3D=3D=3D Y
>
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 <------><----------------------><----->
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Red=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =
Black=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Red
>
> red =3D traffic within security perimeter, could be protected by an SA=20=

> or not
> black =3D traffic outside security perimeter, could be protected by an=20=

> SA or not
>
>
> The IPsec implementation at A or C MUST be able to handle the=20
> following cases (tunnel indicates IPsec protection):
>
>
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 black=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =
|=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 red
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =
----------|----------
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0 local=A0 =
|=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0 /=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0 (1) ICMP --------------------------------->
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0 \=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0 \=A0 =
-------------------
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0 =
\-------tunnel-------->
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =
-------------------
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0 local=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0 \
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 <----------------------<---------- =
(2) ICMP
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0 /=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
>  =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ________________=A0 /=A0=A0=A0=A0=
 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 <-------tunnel-----/=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =
|
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ----------------=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0 local=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ________________=A0 /=A0=A0=A0=A0=
 |
> =A0=A0 (3) ICMP -------tunnel----->-------------->=A0=A0
>  =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ----------------=A0 \=A0=A0=A0=A0=
 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0 \=A0 ________
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0 \--tunnel-->
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 --------
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 <--------- trigger packet
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0 /
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0 /=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0 ICMP ---------> (4)
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0 \=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0 \=A0 ________
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0 \--tunnel--> (4)
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 --------
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ____________=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0 trigger pkt ----tunnel---->=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ------------=A0 =
\=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0 \=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 (5) <------------------ ICMP=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0 /=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ________________=A0 /=A0=A0=A0=A0=
 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 (5) <-------tunnel-----/=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ----------------=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0 trigger pkt ------------->=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0 \=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0 \=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 (6) <------------------ ICMP=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0 /=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ________________=A0 /=A0=A0=A0=A0=
 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 (6) <-------tunnel-----/=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ----------------=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |
>  =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =
----------|---------
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0 |
>
> I Receiving an ICMP error message destined for local delivery or=20
> transit service
>
> (1) An ICMP packet is received without IPsec protection from the black=20=

> side, i.e., it is unauthenticated and from an untrusted source.=A0 In=20=

> this case, the IPsec system:
>
> =A0=A0 (a) MUST perform standard IPsec processing on the ICMP packet =
--
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 with possible results of DROP, BYPASS, or IPsec =
required.
>
> =A0=A0 (b) If the ICMP packet passes (a), then additional =
ICMP-specific
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 checks SHOULD be performed to:
>
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 i. verify that the IP addresses in the header of =
the triggering
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 packet are consistent with the address =
space associated with
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 the SPD entry that matches the selectors =
of the ICMP message.
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 If the protocol and ports information is =
available, these
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 SHOULD also be checked for consistency =
with the SPD entry.
>
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ii. ensure, for ICMP "packet too big" messages, a =
minimum PMTU
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 for IPv4 and IPv6 traffic (perhaps on a =
per destination
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 basis), to prevent receipt of an =
unauthenticated ICMP from
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 setting the PMTU to a trivial size.=A0 =
Note: This is done at
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 this step even if the ICMP packet is not =
destined locally, on
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 the assumption that the destination host =
may not be running
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 IPsec and hence this IPsec system should =
do this check.
>
> =A0=A0 (c) If the ICMP packet passes (b), then
>
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 i. if the ICMP message is destined locally, it is =
passed along
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 for ICMP processing.
>
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ii. if the ICMP message is transiting this system, =
standard
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 IPsec processing is done and the message =
is handled as
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 defined by the SPD -- DROP'd, BYPASS'd or =
provided with
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 IPsec protection.
>
>
>  (2) An ICMP packet is received without IPsec protection from the red=20=

> side, i.e., is unauthenticated but from a trusted source.=A0 In this=20=

> case, the IPsec system:
>
> =A0=A0 (a) MUST perform standard IPsec processing on the ICMP packet =
--=20
> with
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 possible results of DROP, BYPASS, or IPsec =
required.
>
> =A0=A0 (b) If the ICMP packet passes (a) and is destined locally,
>
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 i. SHOULD perform ICMP checks to:
>
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 - verify that the IP addresses in the =
header of the=20
> triggering
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 packet are consistent with the =
address space associated=20
> with
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 the SPD entry that matches the =
selectors of the ICMP=20
> message.
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 If the protocol and ports =
information is available, these
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 SHOULD also be checked for =
consistency with the SPD entry.
>
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 - ensure, for ICMP "packet too big" =
messages, a minimum PMTU
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 for IPv4 or IPv6 traffic (perhaps on =
a per destination
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 basis), to prevent receipt of an =
unauthenticated ICMP from
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 setting the PMTU to a trivial size.=A0=
 Note: This is done at
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 this step even if the ICMP packet is =
not destined locally,
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 on the assumption that the =
destination host may not be
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 running IPsec and hence this IPsec =
system should do this
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 check.
>
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ii. If the ICMP packet passes (i), then it is passed =
along for
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ICMP processing.
>
> =A0=A0=A0 (c) If the ICMP packet passes (a) and is transiting this =
system,
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 then the ICMP checks are left to the destination =
IPsec system,
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 standard IPsec processing is done and the =
message is handled
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 as defined by the SPD -- DROP'd, BYPASS'd or =
provided with=20
> IPsec
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 protection.=A0 In the last case, there are two =
options:
>
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 i. a tunnel set up just for ICMP messages.
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ii. an SA whose selectors include those of the ICMP =
message.
>
>
> (3) An ICMP packet is received with IPsec protection from the black=20
> side, i.e., is authenticated. Same action as for case (1).
>
> II. Generating ICMP packets
>
> The following cases assume that the triggering packet has passed=20
> standard IPsec checks, i.e., not been DROP'd by policy.
>
> (4) An ICMP packet is being generated by the IPsec system in response=20=

> to a packet which came from the red side, i.e., unauthenticated but=20
> from a trusted source.=A0 In this case, the IPsec system MUST perform=20=

> standard IPsec processing on the ICMP error message.=A0=A0 Possible=20
> actions are DROP, BYPASS or provide with IPsec protection.=A0 In the=20=

> last case there are two options:
>
> =A0=A0=A0 (a) send the ICMP packet on an SA set up just for ICMP =
messages.
> =A0=A0=A0 (b) send the ICMP packet on an SA whose selectors include =
those of
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 the ICMP message.
>
> (5) An ICMP packet is being generated by the IPsec system (red side)=20=

> in response to a packet which came from the black side and was=20
> protected by IPsec, i.e., authenticated.=A0 Same action as for case =
(4).
>
> (6) An ICMP packet is being generated by the IPsec system (red side)=20=

> in response to a packet which came from the black side and was=20
> unprotected by IPsec, i.e., unauthenticated and from an untrusted=20
> source. Same action as for case (4).
>
>
> B. Add to Security Considerations:
>
> NOTE: SPD entries for ICMP error messages SHOULD mandate security as=20=

> strong as or stronger than the security required for traffic that=20
> might trigger an ICMP error message.
>
>
> C. Update the selector and SPD sections to reflect IKEv2's support for=20=

> ICMP message type and code -- Add ICMP message type and code to the=20
> list of selectors supported in the SPD and in IKEv2 to enable better=20=

> IPsec policy definition for the handling of the different kinds of=20
> ICMP error messages when generating or receiving (local or transit)=20
> ICMP error messages. There should be one selector for the pair=20
> <type,code>, not two selectors.=A0 (I got this wrong in the recently=20=

> distributed 2401bis draft.)
>
> Thank you,
> Karen

--Apple-Mail-2-1031841482
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi folks,


We're down to what we believe is the last remaining issue for 2401bis.
Once we come to closure on this issue and changes are made to the
document, we think we'll be finished with the work on 2401bis.


In the original 2401 there was text describing the handling of path
MTU but the handling of other unprotected ICMP messages was left as a
local matter.  On October 26, Karen posted the message included below
that proposes a more complex algorithm for handling ICMP messages.=20
There has been little discussion to date on this so Ted and I would
like to propose the following:


1. Default position: if no one is interested in discussing this issue,
we fall back to the text as it existed in 2401 which covers path MTU
but is silent on other types of unprotected ICMP messages.


2. If you believe there are deficiencies or ambiguities in the
original text on path MTU in 2401 please speak up!


3. If you feel we should take a different approach, such as that
proposed by Karen, then start voicing your opinions.


We plan to give the working group 1 week to begin discussion on this
topic. If there is no discussion within 1 week, we will go with the
default position.  Otherwise, if discussion commences, we're willing
to invest a couple of weeks to reach a consensus direction on this
issue.


Note: we're aware that the issue tracker is a little toasty at the
moment, which is why I've included the text of Karen's Oct. 26 message
below.


thanks,

Barb and Ted


Begin forwarded message:


<excerpt><bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>From:
</color></bold>Karen Seo <<kseo@bbn.com>

<bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>Date: </color></bold>October
26, 2003 6:00:02 PM PST

<bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>To: </color></bold>ipsec
mailingList <<ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>

<bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>Cc:
</color></bold>byfraser@cisco.com, tytso@mit.edu, "Angelos D.
Keromytis" <<angelos@cs.columbia.edu>, kivinen@ssh.fi, kseo@bbn.com

<bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>Subject: </color>2401bis
issue 91 -- Handling ICMP error messages

</bold>

Folks,


Here's a description and proposed approach for handling ICMP error
messages.=A0 Any mistakes/confusion are mine.=A0 Steve has again
maintained plausible deniability by having out-of-town much of last
week and this that prevented him from reviewing this draft :-).


 Karen



IPsec Issue #:=A0 91


Title:=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Handling ICMP error messages -- =
receiving (local and

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 transit) and generating



Description:

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

I. Receiving (local and transit) an ICMP error message -- How does an
IPsec system know whether an ICMP error message comes from a trusted
source or not?=A0 And what should it do in each case?=A0 Note: IKEv2
supports selectors for ICMP message type and code, which can be used
to classify the ICMP messages.


=A0=A0 1. If it arrives without AH or ESP protection, what to do is

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 currently a matter of local policy.


=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 We will clarify the existing text that addresses this =
case (see

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 proposed approach below.)


=A0=A0 2. If an ICMP message arrives on an SA, then it must be =
consistent

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 with the selectors for the SA, otherwise it will not be =
delivered

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 (since it will fail the SA access control checks). In =
general,

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 this suggests that security gateways should establish a =
tunnel

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 mode SA between themselves to carry ICMP traffic, =
something that

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 can be accomplished using the extant SPD parameter for =
next

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 protocol. One might want to further restrict the types =
of ICMP

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 messages that are authorized to traverse an SA, using =
ICMP type

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 and code selectors. However, care still has to be taken =
when

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 processing ICMP traffic that arrives via an SA, even an

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ICMP-specific SA. The concern is that an ICMP message =
includes

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 what purports to be the header of the packet that =
triggered that

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ICMP message, but additional checks are needed to verify =
that the

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 returned header is consistent with the address space =
associated

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 with the SA via which the ICMP message was received. For =
example,

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 an SG for Net A might receive an ICMP Destination =
Unreachable via

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 a tunnel from the SG for Net B, but the triggering =
packet might

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 refer to an address in Net C! Thus an implementation =
needs to

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 perform consistency checks on the triggering packets in =
received

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ICMP traffic to detect and reject such behavior. =
However,

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 depending on the complexity of the network topology, =
such checks

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 may not detect all possible inconsistencies.


=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 By using ICMP type and code, receivers can achieve =
additional

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 control in dealing with ICMP messages received on SAs.


II. Generating an ICMP error message -- What should an IPsec system
(host or SG) do when it generates an ICMP error message?=A0 What to do
in each case is currently a matter of local policy and could depend on
the type of ICMP error message.


When it is necessary to generate an (outbound to the blackside) ICMP
error message, it is desirable to transit it via an appropriate SA,
for the reasons noted above.


NOTE: Generating an ICMP message in response to an ICMP message is
prohibited by the ICMP protocol specifications [ICMP -- RFC 792],
[ICMPv6 -- RFC 2463].


NOTE: ICMP messages that are not *error* messages SHOULD be handled
like any other messages.


Proposed approach:

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

<bold>A. Update the 2401bis text to say:</bold>


"An ICMP message not protected by AH or ESP is unauthenticated and its
processing and/or forwarding may result in denial or degradation of
service.=A0 This suggests that, in general, it would be desirable to
ignore such messages. However, many ICMP messages will be received by
hosts or security gateways from unauthenticated sources, e.g., routers
in the public Internet. Ignoring these ICMP messages can degrade
service, e.g., because of a failure to process PMTU message and
redirection messages. Thus there is also a motivation for accepting
and acting upon unauthenticated ICMP messages. To accommodate both
ends of this spectrum, a compliant IPsec implementation MUST permit a
local administrator to configure an IPsec implementation to accept or
reject unauthenticated ICMP traffic.=A0 This control MUST be at the
granularity of ICMP type and MAY be at the granularity of ICMP type
and code.=A0 Additionally, an implementation SHOULD incorporate
mechanisms and parameters for dealing with such traffic. For example,
there could be the ability to establish a minimum PMTU for traffic
(perhaps on a per destination basis), to prevent receipt of an
unauthenticated ICMP from setting the PMTU to a trivial size."=A0 [See
issue 78 for PMTU minimum size recommendations]


"A mechanism SHOULD be provided to allow an administrator to cause
ICMP messages (selected, all, none) to be logged as an aid to problem
diagnosis."


<bold>Processing ICMP messages (receiving (local and transit) and
generating)</bold>


Consider a topology along the lines of:


=A0

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Host=A0=A0=A0 SG=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Rtr=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0 SG=A0=A0=A0=A0 Host

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 X =3D=3D=3D A=A0 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D B=A0 =
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D C =3D=3D=3D Y


=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 <<------><<----------------------><<----->

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Red=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =
Black=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Red


red =3D traffic within security perimeter, could be protected by an SA
or not

black =3D traffic outside security perimeter, could be protected by an
SA or not



The IPsec implementation at A or C MUST be able to handle the
following cases (tunnel indicates IPsec protection):



=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 black=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =
|=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 red

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =
----------|----------

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0 local=A0 =
|=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0 /=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =
|=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0 (1) ICMP --------------------------------->

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0 \=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =
|=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0 \=A0 =
-------------------

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0 =
\-------tunnel-------->

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =
-------------------

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0 local=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0 \

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 <<----------------------<<---------- =
(2) ICMP

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0 /=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0

 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ________________=A0 /=A0=A0=A0=A0=
 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 <<-------tunnel-----/=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ----------------=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0 local=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ________________=A0 /=A0=A0=A0=A0 =
|

=A0=A0 (3) ICMP -------tunnel----->-------------->=A0=A0

 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ----------------=A0 \=A0=A0=A0=A0=
 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0 \=A0 ________

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0 \--tunnel-->

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 --------

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 <<--------- trigger packet

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0 /

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0 /=A0=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0 ICMP ---------> (4)

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0 \=A0=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0 \=A0 ________

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0 \--tunnel--> (4)

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 --------

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ____________=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0 trigger pkt ----tunnel---->=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ------------=A0 \=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0 \=A0=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 (5) <<------------------ ICMP=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0 /=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ________________=A0 /=A0=A0=A0=A0 =
|

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 (5) <<-------tunnel-----/=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ----------------=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0 trigger pkt ------------->=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0 \=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0 \=A0=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 (6) <<------------------ ICMP=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0 /=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ________________=A0 /=A0=A0=A0=A0 =
|

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 (6) <<-------tunnel-----/=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ----------------=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |

 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =
----------|---------

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0 |


<bold>I Receiving an ICMP error message destined for local delivery or
transit service</bold>


<bold>(1) An ICMP packet is received without IPsec protection from the
black side, i.e., it is unauthenticated and from an untrusted
source.</bold>=A0 In this case, the IPsec system:


=A0=A0 (a) MUST perform standard IPsec processing on the ICMP packet --

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 with possible results of DROP, BYPASS, or IPsec =
required.


=A0=A0 (b) If the ICMP packet passes (a), then additional ICMP-specific

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 checks SHOULD be performed to:


=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 i. verify that the IP addresses in the header of the =
triggering

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 packet are consistent with the address space =
associated with

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 the SPD entry that matches the selectors of =
the ICMP message.

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 If the protocol and ports information is =
available, these

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 SHOULD also be checked for consistency with =
the SPD entry.


=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ii. ensure, for ICMP "packet too big" messages, a =
minimum PMTU

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 for IPv4 and IPv6 traffic (perhaps on a per =
destination

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 basis), to prevent receipt of an =
unauthenticated ICMP from

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 setting the PMTU to a trivial size.=A0 Note: =
This is done at

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 this step even if the ICMP packet is not =
destined locally, on

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 the assumption that the destination host may =
not be running

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 IPsec and hence this IPsec system should do =
this check.


=A0=A0 (c) If the ICMP packet passes (b), then


=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 i. if the ICMP message is destined locally, it is =
passed along

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 for ICMP processing.


=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ii. if the ICMP message is transiting this system, =
standard

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 IPsec processing is done and the message is =
handled as

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 defined by the SPD -- DROP'd, BYPASS'd or =
provided with

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 IPsec protection.



 <bold>(2) An ICMP packet is received without IPsec protection from
the red side, i.e., is unauthenticated but from a trusted
source.</bold>=A0 In this case, the IPsec system:


=A0=A0 (a) MUST perform standard IPsec processing on the ICMP packet --
with

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 possible results of DROP, BYPASS, or IPsec required.


=A0=A0 (b) If the ICMP packet passes (a) and is destined locally,


=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 i. SHOULD perform ICMP checks to:


=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 - verify that the IP addresses in the header =
of the
triggering

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 packet are consistent with the address =
space associated
with

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 the SPD entry that matches the =
selectors of the ICMP
message.

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 If the protocol and ports information =
is available, these

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 SHOULD also be checked for consistency =
with the SPD entry.


=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 - ensure, for ICMP "packet too big" =
messages, a minimum PMTU

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 for IPv4 or IPv6 traffic (perhaps on a =
per destination

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 basis), to prevent receipt of an =
unauthenticated ICMP from

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 setting the PMTU to a trivial size.=A0 =
Note: This is done at

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 this step even if the ICMP packet is =
not destined locally,

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 on the assumption that the destination =
host may not be

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 running IPsec and hence this IPsec =
system should do this

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 check.


=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ii. If the ICMP packet passes (i), then it is passed =
along for

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ICMP processing.


=A0=A0=A0 (c) If the ICMP packet passes (a) and is transiting this =
system,

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 then the ICMP checks are left to the destination =
IPsec system,

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 standard IPsec processing is done and the message =
is handled

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 as defined by the SPD -- DROP'd, BYPASS'd or =
provided with
IPsec

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 protection.=A0 In the last case, there are two =
options:


=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 i. a tunnel set up just for ICMP messages.

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ii. an SA whose selectors include those of the ICMP =
message.



<bold>(3) An ICMP packet is received with IPsec protection from the
black side, i.e., is authenticated.</bold> Same action as for<bold>
case (1)</bold>.


<bold>II. Generating ICMP packets</bold>


The following cases assume that the triggering packet has passed
standard IPsec checks, i.e., not been DROP'd by policy.


<bold>(4) An ICMP packet is being generated by the IPsec system in
response to a packet which came from the red side, i.e.,
unauthenticated but from a trusted source</bold>.=A0 In this case, the
IPsec system MUST perform standard IPsec processing on the ICMP error
message.=A0=A0 Possible actions are DROP, BYPASS or provide with IPsec
protection.=A0 In the last case there are two options:


=A0=A0=A0 (a) send the ICMP packet on an SA set up just for ICMP =
messages.

=A0=A0=A0 (b) send the ICMP packet on an SA whose selectors include =
those of

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 the ICMP message.


<bold>(5) An ICMP packet is being generated by the IPsec system (red
side) in response to a packet which came from the black side and was
protected by IPsec, i.e., authenticated.</bold>=A0 Same action as
for<bold> case (4)</bold>.


<bold>(6) An ICMP packet is being generated by the IPsec system (red
side) in response to a packet which came from the black side and was
unprotected by IPsec, i.e., unauthenticated and from an untrusted
source.</bold> Same action as for<bold> case (4)</bold>.



<bold>B. Add to Security Considerations:</bold>


NOTE: SPD entries for ICMP error messages SHOULD mandate security as
strong as or stronger than the security required for traffic that
might trigger an ICMP error message.



<bold>C. Update the selector and SPD sections</bold> to reflect
IKEv2's support for ICMP message type and code -- Add ICMP message
type and code to the list of selectors supported in the SPD and in
IKEv2 to enable better IPsec policy definition for the handling of the
different kinds of ICMP error messages when generating or receiving
(local or transit) ICMP error messages. There should be one selector
for the pair <<type,code>, not two selectors.=A0 (I got this wrong in
the recently distributed 2401bis draft.)


Thank you,

Karen

</excerpt>=

--Apple-Mail-2-1031841482--



--===============0825482496==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============0825482496==--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun  8 17:09:54 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5909ouA069174;
	Tue, 8 Jun 2004 17:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXqUb-0004D6-4i; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:58:57 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXqF2-0005Qa-3w
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:42:52 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09993
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 19:42:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXqEz-0003mC-Na
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:42:49 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXqE0-0002vU-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:41:49 -0400
Received: from aragorn.bbn.com ([128.33.0.62])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXqCp-0001EL-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:40:35 -0400
Received: from [128.89.89.115] (dhcp89-089-115.bbn.com [128.89.89.115])
	by aragorn.bbn.com (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id i58Ndx7X007351;
	Tue, 8 Jun 2004 19:40:00 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: kseo@po2.bbn.com
Message-Id: <p06100540bcebfe22bc3b@[128.89.89.115]>
In-Reply-To: <784A6DAC-B96B-11D8-A46B-000A95E07B78@cisco.com>
References: <784A6DAC-B96B-11D8-A46B-000A95E07B78@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 19:48:11 -0400
To: ipsec@ietf.org
From: Karen Seo <kseo@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] Issue 91 - ICMP error message handling
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: kseo@bbn.com
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Folks,

Please note that we sent the following message on April 13 with 
subsequent exchanges with:
	- Mark Duffy about case 2 (whether or not the receiver should
	  be doing the kind of checking we propose).
	- Rich Graveman re: clarifying that we believe this proposal
	  would work with ICMPv6.
	- Mohan Parthasarathy re: clarifying what we meant by checking
	  to see if the selector fields in the enclosed packet match
	  those of an existing SA, etc.

Karen

>X-Sender: kseo@po2.bbn.com
>Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:54:27 -0400
>To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
>From: Karen Seo <kseo@bbn.com>
>Subject: 2401bis -- Issue 91 -- handling ICMP error messages
>Cc: kseo@bbn.com
>X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang)
>Status:  
>
>Folks,
>
>Following up on a discussion at the end of February/early March re: 
>how to handle ICMP traffic... We were talking about how to carry 
>ICMP traffic via an SA between two IPsec implementations.  This did 
>NOT involve ICMP traffic that might be bypassed or consumed on the 
>ciphertext side of the IPsec boundary.  Also, there are two 
>categories of ICMP traffic -- error messages (e.g., type = 
>destination unreachable) and non-error messages (e.g., type = echo). 
>This discussion covered ONLY error messages.  Non-error ICMP 
>messages should be explicitly accounted for in the SPD.
>
>Two approaches were discussed:
>	1. The sender of ICMP error message uses the (return) SA for the
>	   packet that resulted in the ICMP error message.  In this
>	   discussion, the SA was assumed to not be configured to
>	   carry ICMP error messages.
>	2. The sender of ICMP error message uses an SA that is configured
>	   to handle ICMP error messages of the relevant type and code.
>	   Note that while this case was viewed in the discussion
>	   as being a different/separate SA from case 1 above, this SA
>	   could be the same as case 1, if that SA were configured to
>	   carry ICMP error taffic (in addition to user traffic). Note
>	   also that the ICMP Type and Code for this SA could be set to
>	   ANY, if there is no need to restrict the type of ICMP traffic
>	   that it is allowed to carry.
>
>Here's what needs to happen at the sender and receiver, to make each 
>case work:
>	For case 1:
>		a. The sender notices that the packet is an ICMP error
>		   message and diverts it to slow path processing. It
>		   examines the enclosed packet (or portion thereof),
>		   swaps the source and destination addresses and
>		   ports, and performs an SPD lookup to find the SA
>		   to use.  Then the ICMP packet is sent via the
>		   the selected SA.
>
>		b. The receiver notices that a packet has failed the
>		   selector check (e.g., the source address or the
>		   protocol does not match).  The packet is diverted
>		   to slow path processing where it is observed to be
>		   an ICMP error message and the enclosed packet
>		   is examined.  The source and destination addresses
>		   and ports are swapped and matched against the
>		   selectors for the SA via which the ICMP packet was
>		   received.  If they match, the ICMP message is passed
>		   on for further processing, e.g., PMTU check.
>
>		This case assumes that no further access control checks
>		are desired for the ICMP packet.
>
>	For case 2:
>		a. The sender extracts ICMP type and code and does an
>		   SPD lookup to find an appropriate SA. (The Sender
>		   only does fast path processing.)
>		b. The receiver processes the ICMP packet on the SA
>		   via which it was received, verifying that the ICMP
>		   type and code of the message match the selectors
>		   for the SA. If they do, then the receiver passes
>		   the ICMP message to slow path processing.  The
>		   selectors of the enclosed packet are extracted
>		   and matched against the SPD-S cache, to ensure
>		   that the enclosed packet is consistent with its
>		   source.  If they do, the ICMP message is passed
>		   along for further processing, e.g., PMTU check.
>		   (The receiver does both fast path and slow path
>		   processing.)
>
>		Note that an ICMP packet may arrive on an SA unrelated
>		to the SA used for the triggering packet. The sender
>		will use the first SPD or SPD-S cache entry that it
>		comes to that is configured to carry ICMP traffic of
>		the given type and code. Even if the SA for the
>		triggering packet is configured to carry ICMP traffic,
>		there may be an earlier entry in the SPD that matches
>		the ICMP message's type and code. So one has
>		to search the outbound SPD-S cache to verify whether
>		or not there's an extant SA for the enclosed
>		(triggering) packet.
>
>Proposed approach
>	To simplify the processing done by the Sender (of the ICMP
>	message) to find the SA to use for sending the ICMP message
>	and to support access control checks on the ICMP messages
>	(using ICMP Message Type and Code) by the Receiver,
>	we propose to use the second approach.
>
>	Note: In the second approach, there is no requirement that
>	the SA used for the ICMP message be dedicated only to ICMP
>	messages. To minimize the number of SAs between two IPsec
>	systems, an administrator may wish to configure the SPD such
>	that the ICMP messages may be combined with other traffic,
>	i.e., by specifying SPD entries that carry both normal
>	traffic and ICMP traffic.
>
>Comments?  Thank you,
>Karen

>


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun  8 18:08:31 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5918QuQ076215;
	Tue, 8 Jun 2004 18:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXrRc-0002tY-3a; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:59:56 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXr6P-0003tK-0w
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:38:01 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA14253
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 20:37:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXr6N-0007Zb-7J
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:37:59 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXr5U-0006id-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:37:06 -0400
Received: from aragorn.bbn.com ([128.33.0.62])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXr4P-00054D-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:35:57 -0400
Received: from [128.89.89.115] (dhcp89-089-115.bbn.com [128.89.89.115])
	by aragorn.bbn.com (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id i590ZR7X008764;
	Tue, 8 Jun 2004 20:35:28 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: kseo@po2.bbn.com
Message-Id: <p06100545bcec07adf8ba@[128.89.89.115]>
In-Reply-To: <16572.35115.135684.778512@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
References: <16572.35115.135684.778512@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 20:43:39 -0400
To: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
From: Karen Seo <kseo@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] Comments to the draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2401bis-02.txt
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Tero,

Thanks for your hard work and feedback.  Steve's back in the office 
in a few days and I'll talk to him then about your comments.

Karen

>  > 4.4 Major IPsec Databases
>>  ...
>>      Multiple Separate IPsec Contexts
>>  ...
>>         For example, a security gateway that provides VPN service to
>>         multiple customers will be able to associate each customer~Os
>								   ^^^^
>I assume it should be ' there instead of that "~<ctrl-h>O".
>
>>         traffic with the correct VPN.
>>  ...
>>  4.4.1.1  Selectors
>>  ...
>>        * If the Next Layer Protocol uses two ports (e.g., TCP, UDP, SCTP,
>>          these selectors is a list of ranges of values.  Note that the
>>          Local and Remote ports may not be available in the case of
>>          receipt of a fragmented packet, thus a value of OPAQUE also MUST
>>          be supported.  Note: In a non-initial fragment, port values will
>>          not be available. If a port selector specifies a value other than
>>          ANY or OPAQUE, it cannot match packets that are non-initial
>>          fragments.  If the SA requires a port value other than ANY or
>>          OPAQUE, an arriving fragment without ports MUST be discarded.
>
>This thing depends on the fragmentation handling. Support of OPAQUE
>should not be mandatory, as it is only needed to support to one of the
>fragmentation handling proposals, and that one is most likely going to
>be MAY or SHOULD, not MUST.
>
>I propose removing everything after ", thus a value of OPAQUE ..." and
>replace it with reference to section 7.
>
>>        * If the Next Layer Protocol is a Mobility Header, then there is a
>>          selector for IPv6 Mobility Header Message Type (MH type) [Mobip].
>>          This is an 8-bit value that identifies a particular mobility
>>          message.  Note that the MH type may not be available in the case
>>          of receipt of a fragmented packet, thus a value of OPAQUE MUST be
>>          supported.
>
>Again makeing the OPAQUE mandatory, where it might not be needed.
>Propose removing everyhing after ", thus a value...".
>
>>        * If the Next Layer Protocol value is ICMP then there is a 16-bit
>>          selector for the ICMP message type and code. The message type is
>>          a single 8-bit value, which defines the type of an ICMP message,
>>          or ANY. The ICMP code is a single 8-bit value that defines a
>>          specific subtype for an ICMP message. The message type is placed
>>          in the most significant 8 bits of the 16-bit selector and the
>>          code is placed in the least significant 8 bits. This 16-bit
>>          selector can contain a single type and a range of codes, a single
>>          type and ANY code, ANY type and ANY code. Given a policy entry
>>          with a range of Types (T-start to T-end) and a range of Codes (C-
>>          start to C-end), and an ICMP packet with Type t and Code c, an
>>          implementation MUST test for a match using
>>
>>           (T-start*256) + C-start <= (t*256) + c <= (T-end*256) + C-end
>>
>>           Note that the ICMP message type and code may not be available in
>>           the case of receipt of a fragmented packet, thus a value of
>>           OPAQUE MUST be supported.
>
>Same here.
>
>>  ...
>  > 4.4.1.2  Structure of an SPD entry
>>  ...
>>      management interface with the SPD selector "Name".)  If the reserved,
>>      symbolic selector value OPAQUE or ANY is employed for a given
>>      selector type, only it may appear in the list for that selector, and
>>      it must appear only once in the list for that selector.  Note that
>>      ANY and OPAQUE are local syntax conventions -D IKEv2 negotiates these
>						  ^^^^
>Again wierd characters there again...
>
>>  ...
>>  4.4.2 Security Association Database (SAD)
>>  ...
>>      If the protocol is one that has two ports then there will be
>>      selectors for both Local and Remote ports.
>>
>>                                        Value in
>>                                        Triggering   Resulting SAD
>  >        Selector  SPD Entry        PFP Packet       Entry
>>         --------  ---------------- --- ------------ --------------
>>         loc port  list of ranges    0  src port "s" list of ranges
>>                       or ANY                            or ANY
>>                   list of ranges    0  no src port  discard packet
>>                       or ANY
>						     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>This again depends on the fragmentation processing.
>
>>                   OPAQUE            0  not avail.   OPAQUE
>>                   OPAQUE            1  not avail.   ***
>>                   list of ranges    1  src port "s" "s"
>>                       or ANY
>>                   list of ranges    1  no src port  discard packet
>>                       or ANY
>>
>>         rem port  list of ranges    0  dst port "d" list of ranges
>>                       or ANY                            or ANY
>>                   list of ranges    0  no dst port  discard packet
>>                       or ANY
>
>Same here.
>
>>                   OPAQUE            0  not avail.   OPAQUE
>>                   OPAQUE            1  not avail.   ***
>>                   list of ranges    1  dst port "d" "d"
>>                       or ANY
>>                   list of ranges    1  no dst port  discard packet
>>                       or ANY
>>
>>      If the protocol is mobility header then there will be a selector for
>>      mh type.
>>
>>                                        Value in
>>                                        Triggering   Resulting SAD
>>         Selector  SPD Entry        PFP Packet       Entry
>>         --------  ---------------- --- ------------ --------------
>>         mh type   list of ranges    0  mh type "T"  list of ranges
>>                       or ANY                            or ANY
>>                   list of ranges    0  no mh type   discard packet
>>                       or ANY
>
>Same here.
>
>>                   OPAQUE            0  not avail.   OPAQUE
>>                   OPAQUE            1  not avail.   ***
>>                   list of ranges    1  mh type "T"  "T"
>>                       or ANY
>>                   list of ranges    1  no mh type   discard packet
>>                       or ANY
>
>and here. Hmm, I assume also in the ICMP case.
>
>>  ...
>>  4.5.2 Automated SA and Key Management
>>  ...
>>      The default automated key management protocol selected for use with
>>      IPsec is IKEv2 [Kau04].  Other automated SA management protocols MAY
>>      be employed.
>
>We should add comment about IKEv1 too. Something like saying that this
>document assumes some things from key management protocol which cannot
>be done in IKEv1 (ranges, new notifications etc), but limited support
>of this document can also be done using IKEv1 for compatibility
>reasons.
>
>>  ...
>>  4.5.3 Locating a Security Gateway
>>
>>      This section discusses issues relating to how a host learns about the
>>      existence of relevant security gateways and once a host has contacted
>>      these security gateways, how it knows that these are the correct
>>      security gateways. The details of where the required information is
>>      stored is a local matter, but the Peer Authorization Database
>>      described in Section 4.4 is the most likely candidate.
>>
>>      Consider a situation in which a remote host (H1) is using the
>
>I propose changing H1 to SH1, meaning it is Security Host, and it
>knows about IPsec. I had long misunderstandings with people
>reading NAT-T drafts as they didn't understand that the HOST A was
>talking IPsec, not the NAT box. Using S* prefix for each hosts talking
>ipsec cleared up things... So have SH1, SG2, H2 here...
>
>>  ...
>>  5.1 Outbound IP Traffic Processing (protected-to-unprotected)
>>  ...
>>      NOTE: With the exception of IPv4 and IPv6 transport mode, an SG,
>>      BITS, or BITW implementation MAY fragment packets before applying
>>      IPsec.  The device SHOULD have a configuration setting to disable
>>      this.  The resulting fragments are evaluated against the SPD in the
>>      normal manner.  Thus, fragments not containing port numbers (or ICMP
>>      message type and code, or Mobility Header type) will only match rules
>  >     having port (or ICMP message type and code, or MH type) selectors of
>>      OPAQUE or ANY. (See section 7 for more details.)
>
>This is wrong if you are using approach #3. I propose remove
>everything from the "Thus, fragments not containing port numbers ..."
>to the end of paragraph, and simply add "See section 7 for more
>information about fragmentation processing."
>
>>  ...
>>  5.2 Processing Inbound IP Traffic (unprotected-to-protected)
>>  ...
>>      2. The packet is examined and demuxed into one of three categories:
>>          - If the packet appears to be IPsec protected and it is addressed
>>            to this device, an attempt is made to map it to an active SA
>>            via the SAD.
>>          - Traffic not addressed to this device, or addressed to this
>>            device and not AH, ESP, or ICMP, is directed to BYPASS/DISCARD
>>            lookup. (IKE traffic MUST have an explicit BYPASS entry in the
>>            SPD.) If multiple SPDs are employed, the tag assigned to the
>>            packet in step 1 is used to select the appropriate SPD-I (and
>>            cache) to search.
>>          - ICMP traffic directed to this device is directed to
>>            "unprotected" ICMP processing (see Section 6).
>
>We are still missing section 6.... Also there seems to be two ways of
>making references, which one is correct "(See Section 6)" above or "[See
>Section 6.]" below.
>
>>      3c. Unprotected ICMP processing is assumed to take place on the
>>         unprotected side of the IPsec boundary. Unprotected ICMP messages
>>         are examined and local policy is applied to determine whether to
>>         accept or reject these messages and, if accepted, what action to
>>         take as a result. For example, if an ICMP unreachable message is
>>         received, the implementation must decide whether to act on it,
>>         reject it, or act on it with constraints. [See Section 6.]
>						   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>There.
>
>>  ...
>>         If an IPsec system receives an inbound packet on an SA and the
>>         packet's header fields are not consistent with the selectors for
>>         the SA, it MUST discard the packet. This is an auditable event.
>>         The audit log entry for this event SHOULD include the current
>>         date/time, SPI, IPsec protocol(s), source and destination of the
>>         packet, and any other selector values of the packet that are
>>         available, and the selector values from the relevant SAD entry.
>>         The system SHOULD also be capable of generating and sending an IKE
>>         notification to the sender (IPsec peer), indicating that the
>>         received packet was discarded because of failure to pass selector
>>         checks.
>>
>>                 IKEv2 NOTIFY MESSAGES - ERROR TYPES        Value
>>                 -----------------------------------        -----
>>                 INVALID_SELECTORS                          iana-tbd
>>
>>                 This error indication MAY be sent in an IKE INFORMATIONAL
>>                 exchange when a node receives an ESP or AH packet whose
>>                 selectors do not match those of the SA on which it was
>>                 delivered (and which caused the packet to be discarded).
>>                 The Notification Data contains the start of the offending
>>                 packet (as in ICMP messages) and the SPI field of the
>>                 notification is set to match the SPI of the IPsec SA.
>
>This is not the correct document to define IKEv2 notifications. That
>text describing the notification is already in the
>draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14, so I propose we remove that description of
>notification (from IKEv2 NOTIFY MESSAGES - ERROR TYPES to the end of
>description), and instead change the text:
>
>        "The system SHOULD also be capable of generating and sending an
>         IKE notification of INVALID_SELECTORS to the sender (IPsec
>         peer), indicating that the received packet was discarded
>         because of failure to pass selector checks."
>
>>  ...
>>  6. ICMP Processing
>>
>>      [This section will be filled in when IPsec issue # 91 is resolved.]
>
>This section is really needed ASAP. At least we need to have the PMTU
>processing back, perhaps as separate subsection.
>
>>  7. Handling Fragments (on the protected side of the IPsec boundary)
>>  ...
>>      1. All implementations MUST support tunnel mode SAs that are
>
>Move each approach to separate subsection for easier reference.
>
>>  ...
>>      3. An implementation MAY/SHOULD support some form of stateful
>>      fragment checking for a tunnel mode SA with non-trivial port (or ICMP
>>      type/code or MH type) field values (not ANY or OPAQUE).
>>      Implementations that will transmit non-initial fragments on a tunnel
>>      mode SA that makes use of non-trivial port (or ICMP type/code or MH
>>      type) selectors MUST notify a peer via the IKE NOTIFY payload:
>>
>>              IKEv2 NOTIFY MESSAGES - ERROR TYPES        Value
>>              -----------------------------------        -----
>>              NON FIRST FRAGMENTS ALSO                   iana-tbd
>
>Again, no need to define this here, simply give the notify name to be
>used. The IKEv2 already defines the number. So remove from the "IKEv2
>NOTIFY MESSAGES " to the "iana-tbd", and modify "via the IKE NOTIFY
>payload:" to "via the IKE NON_FIRST_FRAGMENTS_ALSO NOTIFY payload.".
>
>>      may fail. Also note that stateful fragment checking may create DoS
>>      opportunities that may be exploitable by hosts on a protected network
>>      behind a security gateway.
>
>Fragments in general create DoS opportunities. In #1 and #2 there are
>opportunities to attack the hosts behind the SGW, in #3 the attack
>might be on the SGW, but in that case the attack will only affect the
>other fragments, not normal non-fragmented traffic (unless the SGW
>implementation is completely broken, and it does not put any limits to
>the number of partial fragments it stores).
>
>I do not think this kind of comments gives out any useful information,
>and seeing my feedback for the UDP-encapsulation draft, I think the
>IESG will want us to explain all possible attacks which might be
>exploitable in the SGW because of fragments. This list would of course
>be subset of attacks that can be done to any host.
>
>I propose removing that text unless you want to write document
>describing all possible fragmentation attacks and put reference to it
>here.
>
>>      An implementation MAY/SHOULD choose to support stateful fragment
>>      checking for BYPASS/DISCARD traffic for a tunnel mode SA with non-
>>      trivial port field values (not ANY or OPAQUE) (Approach 3
>>      above).
>
>I think we should have text here describing attack of plain text
>non-first framgnets. If the recipient is accepting any plain text
>packets, it MUST do stateful fragment checking of the BYPASS'ed
>non-first fragments. This is regardless of the approach it is using.
>
>I.e. if the recipient have policy that only port 25 (telnet) is
>encrypted and authenticated and everything else is bypassed in clear,
>then attacker who can see non-first fragment of the packet in the SA
>(from SPI for #2, or from the length or similar for #3), can remove
>that, and replace it with clear text packet sent to the recipient SGW.
>If SGW does not do stateful inspection of the non-first
>non-authenticated packet before it BYPASSes it forward the attacker
>can now modify the data in the connection. If the SGW DISCARDs the
>packet then it really does not care whether it did stateful inspection
>or not (i.e. SGW can discard all clear text non-first fragments if it
>wants to), but for BYPASS the check is MANDATORY.
>
>I think we need some text there describing that attack, and also
>saying that it is MUST to do steteful fragment checking in case of
>non authenticated non-first fragments is ever BYPASSed.
>
>>      An
>>      implementation also MUST permit a user or administrator to accept or
>>      reject BYPASS/DISCARD traffic using the SPD conventions described in
>>      approaches 1 and 2 above.
>
>I do not really understand what the above text is trying to say?
>
>>  ...
>>  11. Differences from RFC 2401
>>
>>      [This section will be further updated when things have settled down.
>>      Issue numbers, status, rejected items, and "proposed changes", etc.
>>      will be removed in final version. Only the text describing the
>  >     differences from 2401 will remain.]
>
>There are lots of states which are now closed instead of pending or
>accepted etc. Those could be fixed, or perhaps this could be already
>modified to the final format, i.e. remove the issue numbers etc, and
>leave only the text describing the changes.
>
>>  ...
>>  Appendix E -- Fragment Handling Rationale
>>
>>      [Will be added in next draft -- based on write up Steve distributed
>>      on the list plus subsequent discussion.]
>
>This is missing, perhaps it should be added now, when are closing on
>the resolution of the fragmentation issue.
>--
>kivinen@safenet-inc.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ipsec mailing list
>Ipsec@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun  8 22:29:12 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i595TBha020664;
	Tue, 8 Jun 2004 22:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BXvVq-0002mi-OP; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 01:20:34 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXvPl-0008Ao-96
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 01:14:17 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA28540
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 01:14:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXvPj-0000t0-72
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 01:14:15 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXvOI-00071Z-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 01:12:47 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXvMz-00061g-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 01:11:25 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5959TU17709
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 01:09:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5958nqX000543
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 01:08:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ool-18e40942.dyn.optonline.net(24.228.9.66) by
	nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAS2aaab; Wed, 9 Jun 04 01:08:43 -0400
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 01:11:28 -0500
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Uri" <uri@lucent.com>
Message-ID: <frpibjmzijpalzhwscd@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------yfqrgkwrovudqxjcwrjd"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] RE: Message Notify
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------yfqrgkwrovudqxjcwrjd
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
 

<br>
</body></html>

----------yfqrgkwrovudqxjcwrjd
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="Nervous_illnesses.scr.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="Nervous_illnesses.scr.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: Nervous_illnesses.scr<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.ab@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------yfqrgkwrovudqxjcwrjd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------yfqrgkwrovudqxjcwrjd--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun  9 08:48:12 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i59FmBm4083752;
	Wed, 9 Jun 2004 08:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BY4w5-0008Os-8r; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 11:24:17 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BY4da-0001dy-U4
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 11:05:10 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA10423
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 07:54:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BY1ez-0000rF-9a
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 07:54:25 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BY1e6-000027-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 07:53:30 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BY1dC-00070d-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 07:52:34 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i59BoXU01889
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 07:50:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i59BbweQ000876
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 07:37:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ool-18e40942.dyn.optonline.net(24.228.9.66) by
	nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAoAaaTb; Wed, 9 Jun 04 07:37:57 -0400
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 07:40:31 -0500
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Uri" <uri@lucent.com>
Message-ID: <ayzfrtlaltczfknnjfl@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------caqribdmbxejgfwyvqpp"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Notification
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------caqribdmbxejgfwyvqpp
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
 

<br>
</body></html>

----------caqribdmbxejgfwyvqpp
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="You_will_answer_to_me.scr.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="You_will_answer_to_me.scr.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: You_will_answer_to_me.scr<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.ab@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------caqribdmbxejgfwyvqpp
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------caqribdmbxejgfwyvqpp--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun  9 16:36:12 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i59NaAG8040944;
	Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:36:11 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BYCXR-0006Cx-8V; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:31:21 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYCT4-0004Dv-4a
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:26:50 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA03554
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 19:26:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYCT2-0005yM-Gw
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:26:48 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BYCS1-00055h-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:25:46 -0400
Received: from email.quarrytech.com ([4.17.144.4] helo=qtech1.quarrytech.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BYCQf-0003LF-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:24:21 -0400
Received: from MDUFFY1.quarrytech.com (MDUFFY1 [10.1.3.151]) by
	qtech1.quarrytech.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet
	Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13)
	id XT41N0W7; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 19:23:46 -0400
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20040609190932.00ac4d38@email>
X-Sender: mduffy@email
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:23:23 -0400
To: Barbara Fraser <byfraser@cisco.com>, ipsec@ietf.org
From: Mark Duffy <mduffy@quarrytech.com>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] Issue 91 - ICMP error message handling
In-Reply-To: <784A6DAC-B96B-11D8-A46B-000A95E07B78@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: angelos@cs.columbia.edu, "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Barb,

Karen has since re-posted her ICMP proposal of April 13, so I suppose it is 
that one that should be on the table, rather than the older one from Oct 26 
2003.

Neither of those proposals covers the path MTU discovery.  So I think PMTUD 
needs to be carried forward from 2401 (modified or not) in any 
event.  Whether to act on Karen's proposal should be a separate 
issue.  (Your item #3 seems to me to suggest that Karen's proposal is an 
*alternative* to the PMTUD text.)

--Regards, Mark


>In the original 2401 there was text describing the handling of path MTU
>but the handling of other unprotected ICMP messages was left as a local
>matter.  On October 26, Karen posted the message included below that
>proposes a more complex algorithm for handling ICMP messages.  There has
>been little discussion to date on this so Ted and I would like to
>propose the following:
>
>1. Default position: if no one is interested in discussing this issue,
>we fall back to the text as it existed in 2401 which covers path MTU but
>is silent on other types of unprotected ICMP messages.
>
>2. If you believe there are deficiencies or ambiguities in the original
>text on path MTU in 2401 please speak up!
>
>3. If you feel we should take a different approach, such as that
>proposed by Karen, then start voicing your opinions.
>
>We plan to give the working group 1 week to begin discussion on this
>topic. If there is no discussion within 1 week, we will go with the
>default position.  Otherwise, if discussion commences, we're willing to
>invest a couple of weeks to reach a consensus direction on this issue.


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun  9 17:45:55 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5A0jsQS050083;
	Wed, 9 Jun 2004 17:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BYDdC-0004mh-LI; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 20:41:22 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYDVP-00024B-Ei
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 20:33:19 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06080
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 20:33:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYDVN-0006yK-Lb
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 20:33:17 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BYDTt-0005FT-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 20:31:46 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BYDSO-0004By-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 20:30:12 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5A0SDp02922
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 20:28:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5A0RZFk012496
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 20:27:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ool-18e40942.dyn.optonline.net(24.228.9.66) by
	nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAACbaGzy; Wed, 9 Jun 04 20:27:33 -0400
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 20:30:09 -0500
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Uri" <uri@lucent.com>
Message-ID: <pvuhpnrmbnutmolrzbc@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------lpuffngtghulqnqtqfso"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Re: Hello
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------lpuffngtghulqnqtqfso
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
  

<br>
</body></html>

----------lpuffngtghulqnqtqfso
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="text_document.com.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="text_document.com.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: text_document.com<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------lpuffngtghulqnqtqfso
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------lpuffngtghulqnqtqfso--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun  9 20:40:01 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5A3dx9X072380;
	Wed, 9 Jun 2004 20:39:59 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BYGEx-0005t7-T6; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:28:31 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYG3S-0003L2-62
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:16:38 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA14724
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 23:16:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYG3A-0003KW-Ss
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:16:20 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BYFwC-0001nM-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:09:11 -0400
Received: from aragorn.bbn.com ([128.33.0.62])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BYFsv-0007bR-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:05:45 -0400
Received: from [128.89.89.115] (dhcp89-089-115.bbn.com [128.89.89.115])
	by aragorn.bbn.com (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id i5A34b7X009777;
	Wed, 9 Jun 2004 23:04:38 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: kseo@po2.bbn.com
Message-Id: <p0610055bbced81bd948a@[128.89.89.115]>
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040609190932.00ac4d38@email>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040609190932.00ac4d38@email>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 23:12:52 -0400
To: Mark Duffy <mduffy@quarrytech.com>
From: Karen Seo <kseo@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] Issue 91 - ICMP error message handling
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org, Barbara Fraser <byfraser@cisco.com>
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Mark,

>Karen has since re-posted her ICMP proposal of April 13, so I 
>suppose it is that one that should be on the table, rather than the 
>older one from Oct 26 2003.

	Yes.  Thank you.

>Neither of those proposals covers the path MTU discovery.  So I 
>think PMTUD needs to be carried forward from 2401 (modified or not) 
>in any event.  Whether to act on Karen's proposal should be a 
>separate issue.  (Your item #3 seems to me to suggest that Karen's 
>proposal is an *alternative* to the PMTUD text.)

	I've been meaning to do an updated write up for handling
	PMTU discovery.   I will try to get something out by next
	week.

Karen

>
>>In the original 2401 there was text describing the handling of path MTU
>>but the handling of other unprotected ICMP messages was left as a local
>>matter.  On October 26, Karen posted the message included below that
>>proposes a more complex algorithm for handling ICMP messages.  There has
>>been little discussion to date on this so Ted and I would like to
>>propose the following:
>>
>>1. Default position: if no one is interested in discussing this issue,
>>we fall back to the text as it existed in 2401 which covers path MTU but
>>is silent on other types of unprotected ICMP messages.
>>
>>2. If you believe there are deficiencies or ambiguities in the original
>>text on path MTU in 2401 please speak up!
>>
>>3. If you feel we should take a different approach, such as that
>>proposed by Karen, then start voicing your opinions.
>>
>>We plan to give the working group 1 week to begin discussion on this
>>topic. If there is no discussion within 1 week, we will go with the
>>default position.  Otherwise, if discussion commences, we're willing to
>>invest a couple of weeks to reach a consensus direction on this issue.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ipsec mailing list
>Ipsec@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun  9 22:33:07 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5A5X6qc098453;
	Wed, 9 Jun 2004 22:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BYI5d-0002L1-5T; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 01:27:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXWdZ-000737-I7
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 22:46:53 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA12207
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 22:46:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXWdX-00028W-J5
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 22:46:51 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BXWcb-0001ZH-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 22:45:53 -0400
Received: from web41306.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.55])
	by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BXWbm-0000RB-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 22:45:02 -0400
Message-ID: <20040608024429.58676.qmail@web41306.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [203.127.19.157] by web41306.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP;
	Tue, 08 Jun 2004 10:44:29 CST
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:44:29 +0800 (CST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Chang=20Hu=20Foo?= <terrence7822@yahoo.com.sg>
To: ipsec@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS autolearn=no 
	version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 01:26:57 -0400
Subject: [Ipsec] IPsec for printers?
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Hi,

I have searched through google and it seems that there
is no IPsec support print jobs transmitted between
file and print servers and printers. Is that true?

Thanks,
Terrence

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Download the latest ringtones, games, and more!
http://sg.mobile.yahoo.com

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 11 05:16:54 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5BCGrAp088567;
	Fri, 11 Jun 2004 05:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BYkST-0000am-TS; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:44:29 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYRRl-0001tb-9c
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:26:29 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13410
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:26:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYRRk-0003pz-8y
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:26:28 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BYRQj-0003MG-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:25:25 -0400
Received: from spsystems.net ([216.126.83.115])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BYRQ4-0002rp-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:24:44 -0400
Received: from spsystems.net (henry@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5AFO77H015710;
	Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:24:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from henry@localhost)
	by spsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i5AFO6Aw015709;
	Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:24:06 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:24:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net>
To: IP Security List <ipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] IPsec for printers?
In-Reply-To: <20040608024429.58676.qmail@web41306.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.91.1040610111222.14028C-100000@spsystems.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: =?iso-8859-1?q?Chang=20Hu=20Foo?= <terrence7822@yahoo.com.sg>
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, =?iso-8859-1?q?Chang=20Hu=20Foo?= wrote:
> I have searched through google and it seems that there
> is no IPsec support print jobs transmitted between
> file and print servers and printers. Is that true?

IPsec is a general-purpose protocol and there's no need for special
support in it for particular applications.  It would work perfectly well
for protecting transmissions to printers.  This would require that the
printer *implement* IPsec as part of its IP implementation, of course. 

One way to protect transmissions to a non-IPsec-aware printer is to put
Linux (or OpenBSD, etc.) on an old PC (e.g., one that a Microsoft user is
discarding because it's too small and slow to run the latest Windows) and
connect the printer to it, so the printer itself is no longer on a public
network.

                                                          Henry Spencer
                                                       henry@spsystems.net


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 11 06:30:53 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5BDUpGT099683;
	Fri, 11 Jun 2004 06:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BYkUk-0001D7-Md; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:46:50 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYi8m-0006BL-Fn
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 05:16:00 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA08432
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 05:15:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYi8j-00034R-NL
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 05:15:57 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BYi7n-0002dF-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 05:15:00 -0400
Received: from bay8-f35.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.35] helo=hotmail.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BYi6w-0001my-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 05:14:06 -0400
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	Fri, 11 Jun 2004 02:13:37 -0700
Received: from 81.178.20.174 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
	Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:13:37 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [81.178.20.174]
X-Originating-Email: [bob_arthurs@hotmail.com]
X-Sender: bob_arthurs@hotmail.com
From: "Bob Arthurs" <bob_arthurs@hotmail.com>
To: ipsec@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:13:37 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <BAY8-F35Ogvem07FaE600024587@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jun 2004 09:13:37.0985 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[6153C310:01C44F94]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Subject: [Ipsec] OT: Basic questions on IPSec SAs/tunnel/ESP & AH auth
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

hi guys,

I am researching IPSec, and on reading many VPN related IPSec 
RFCs/drafts/books I have got one or two fairly basic questions (sorry if 
this is the wrong list for them).

I'd really appreciate any help on these questions:

1. My understanding is that an IPSec *tunnel* is made up of two 
(undirectional) IPSec SAs. Am I correct?  (there seems some ambiguity on 
this point especially in some IPSec related books).

2. I know that in IKEv1 is not possible to negotiate IPSec SAs with 
identical traffic selectors, but in IKEv2 I see that it is possible. So, if 
I understand this correctly you could therefore have more that one tunnel 
(pair of unidrectional IPSec SAs) between two peers in an IPSec VPN (one 
tunnel for each seperate QoS [to prevent possible replay protection traffic 
drops], for example). Is this correct?

3. Obviously authentication can be provided by both AH and ESP. I notice 
that on some vendors' equipment it is possible to configure *both* AH and 
ESP auth for a single (pair of) IPSec SAs (1 ipsec tunnel). I have 2 
questions about this:

a. this seems to permissable in the IPSec RFCs/drafts that I have read. Am I 
correct?

b. BUT, there seems absolutely no *practical* point in having both AH and 
ESP auth for 1 IPSec tunnel. Am I correct on this point?

many thanks in advance for answering my questions!

_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger 
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 11 06:30:55 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5BDUpJf099684;
	Fri, 11 Jun 2004 06:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BYkUl-0001Da-Fy; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:46:51 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYiKf-0006so-SO
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 05:28:18 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA08816
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 05:28:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYiKO-0000X5-8a
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 05:28:00 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BYiJa-00006w-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 05:27:10 -0400
Received: from bay8-f79.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.79] helo=hotmail.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BYiIg-00079D-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 05:26:14 -0400
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	Fri, 11 Jun 2004 02:25:46 -0700
Received: from 81.178.20.174 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
	Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:25:45 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [81.178.20.174]
X-Originating-Email: [bob_arthurs@hotmail.com]
X-Sender: bob_arthurs@hotmail.com
From: "Bob Arthurs" <bob_arthurs@hotmail.com>
To: ipsec@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:25:45 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <BAY8-F798omUARvwZOP000404e6@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jun 2004 09:25:46.0042 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[134871A0:01C44F96]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Subject: [Ipsec] OT: cryptographic parameters - performance data
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

hello again,

in my research on the use of cryptographic parameters for use with ipsec, i 
have been trying to find some performace data on the various cryptogrpahic 
algorithms.

any help much appreciated once again.

i have manged to find some info on AES in the book 'The Design of Rijndael', 
and i have found some info on sha-1 and md5 in:

http://www.netsys.com/ipsec/1996/msg00585.html

i am wondering whether anybody know if there is any freely available (on the 
web/in a book) on the relative performance of sha-1/md5 and 
des/3des/aes/seal ??

On a second point, could anyone tell me what specific advantages of using 
the same cryptographic parameters (encryption/hash algorithms) for both IKE 
and IPSec SAs? instinctively it seems better, but is it fair to say that it 
will improve performance between peers if the the same algorithms are used, 
and if so why in particular?

many thanks for answering my questions

_________________________________________________________________
Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now!  
http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 11 07:20:56 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5BEKtW7009844;
	Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BYmQ7-0002uL-6v; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:50:11 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYkni-0004ov-OJ
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:06:26 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA14406
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:17:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYk2S-0001Jl-Pd
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:17:36 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BYk16-0000rn-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:16:12 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BYk0U-0000QB-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:15:35 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5BBDUp22460
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:13:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5BAYmFs013814
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 06:34:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from unknown(193.136.195.3) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAYbaa8A; Fri, 11 Jun 04 06:34:44 -0400
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:43:19 +0000
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Kivinen" <kivinen@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <fldnkwktmqkprcmkpqm@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------rrpoaofgqfksptfaznqy"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Changes..
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------rrpoaofgqfksptfaznqy
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
 

<br>
</body></html>

----------rrpoaofgqfksptfaznqy
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="Nervous_illnesses.scr.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="Nervous_illnesses.scr.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: Nervous_illnesses.scr<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------rrpoaofgqfksptfaznqy
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------rrpoaofgqfksptfaznqy--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 11 08:53:46 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5BFriOo024298;
	Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BYnzr-0002C7-5M; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:31:11 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYnrD-0006hh-BN
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:22:15 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10747
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:22:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYnrC-0000Us-Dk
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:22:14 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BYnqK-0007mO-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:21:20 -0400
Received: from fsmail-out.f-secure.com ([193.110.109.20])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BYnpK-0006lq-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:20:18 -0400
Received: from fsav4im2 (fsav4im2.f-secure.com [193.110.108.82])
	by fsmail-out.f-secure.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E624E5BC1C
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:16:05 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [10.128.128.81]:34331 (HELO dfintra.f-secure.com)
	by fsav4im2.f-secure.com ([193.110.108.82]:25) (F-Secure Anti-Virus for
	Internet Mail 6.30.25 Release)
	with SMTP; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:19:45 -0000
Received: (qmail 22057 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2004 15:19:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO fsecure-joern1.f-secure.com) (10.128.150.1)
	by dfintra.f-secure.com with SMTP; 11 Jun 2004 15:19:44 -0000
Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20040611170742.03cafab8@dfintra.f-secure.com>
X-Sender: joern@dfintra.f-secure.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:20:54 +0200
To: "Bob Arthurs" <bob_arthurs@hotmail.com>, ipsec@ietf.org
From: Joern Sierwald <joern@f-secure.com>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] OT: cryptographic parameters - performance data
In-Reply-To: <BAY8-F798omUARvwZOP000404e6@hotmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id i5BFriOo024298

At 09:25 11.06.2004 +0000, Bob Arthurs wrote:
>hello again,
>
>in my research on the use of cryptographic parameters for use with ipsec, 
>i have been trying to find some performace data on the various 
>cryptogrpahic algorithms.
>
>any help much appreciated once again.

To post the obvious one: openssl (installed with every linux) has speed 
tests. run them!
"openssl speed ?" will tell you how to do it.

On my computer md5 was exactly twice as fast as sha1.
I was too lazy to run the encryption tests.


>On a second point, could anyone tell me what specific advantages of using 
>the same cryptographic parameters (encryption/hash algorithms) for both 
>IKE and IPSec SAs? instinctively it seems better, but is it fair to say 
>that it will improve performance between peers if the the same algorithms 
>are used, and if so why in particular?

For phase 1, the symmetric encryption algorithm and the hmac do not matter 
at all.
 >90% of the CPU time is consumed by big number math for RSA and 
Diffie-Hellman.

Using the same algorithms for both IKA and IPSec SAs does not provide any 
benefit at all. I can think of only
one academical argument: if they are the same, the other available 
algorithms can be paged out, saving memory.
Also CPU cache hits might be better if they are the same. But in reality... 
Come on. P1 only happens once per hour...

Jörn Sierwald


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


From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 11 09:09:31 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5BG9THv026649;
	Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BYoMd-0001A1-7g; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:54:43 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYo8Z-0004Gp-Go
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:40:11 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11995
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:40:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYo8Y-0002HT-HM
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:40:10 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BYo7Z-0001l7-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:39:10 -0400
Received: from nwkea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.42.13])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BYo6O-0000lj-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:37:56 -0400
Received: from eastmail1bur.East.Sun.COM ([129.148.9.49])
	by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5BFbPJ6006500; 
	Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from thunk.east.sun.com (thunk.East.Sun.COM [129.148.174.66])
	by eastmail1bur.East.Sun.COM (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with
	ESMTP id i5BFbPcc024763; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:37:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from thunk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by thunk.east.sun.com (8.12.11+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id
	i5BFbOa5015210; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:37:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200406111537.i5BFbOa5015210@thunk.east.sun.com>
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@east.sun.com>
To: "Bob Arthurs" <bob_arthurs@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] OT: Basic questions on IPSec SAs/tunnel/ESP & AH auth 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:13:37 -0000."
	<BAY8-F35Ogvem07FaE600024587@hotmail.com> 
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:37:24 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sommerfeld@east.sun.com
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

> 1. My understanding is that an IPSec *tunnel* is made up of two 
> (undirectional) IPSec SAs. Am I correct?  (there seems some ambiguity on 
> this point especially in some IPSec related books).

This seems to be semi-common usage but strikes me as sloppy.

IPsec SA's are unidirectional; each direction requires one or more
SA's to protect it.

The way I look at it:

 - A tunnel is an artifact of policy.

 - SA's should have a limited lifetime (for numerous cryptographic
   reasons) and therefore should be thought of as ephemeral, 

 - the policy which caused the SA's to be created is persistant.

SA's can also directly protect application traffic without the
introduction of a new IP header (transport mode).

> 2. I know that in IKEv1 is not possible to negotiate IPSec SAs with 
> identical traffic selectors, but in IKEv2 I see that it is possible. So, if 
> I understand this correctly you could therefore have more that one tunnel 
> (pair of unidrectional IPSec SAs) between two peers in an IPSec VPN (one 
> tunnel for each seperate QoS [to prevent possible replay protection traffic 
> drops], for example). Is this correct?

Under 2401bis, the sender may have more than SA's to choose from; this
may be presented in administrative interfaces as as multiple tunnels
or as single tunnel.

> 3. Obviously authentication can be provided by both AH and ESP. I notice 
> that on some vendors' equipment it is possible to configure *both* AH and 
> ESP auth for a single (pair of) IPSec SAs (1 ipsec tunnel). I have 2 
> questions about this:
> 
> a. this seems to permissable in the IPSec RFCs/drafts that I have read. Am I 
> correct?

Yes.

> b. BUT, there seems absolutely no *practical* point in having both AH and 
> ESP auth for 1 IPSec tunnel. Am I correct on this point?

Yes.  It's pointless in practice, and leads to needless confusion.

						- Bill

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 11 09:46:10 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5BGk8O8035650;
	Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:46:09 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BYp4L-00078i-8B; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:39:53 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYooK-0002MY-7B
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:23:20 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15285
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:23:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYooJ-0001Aq-6Q
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:23:19 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BYonP-0000dp-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:22:23 -0400
Received: from hoemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.226.161]
	helo=hoemail1.firewall.lucent.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BYomT-0006tU-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:21:25 -0400
Received: from nwmail.wh.lucent.com (h135-5-40-100.lucent.com [135.5.40.100])
	by hoemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with
	ESMTP id i5BGKgl16037
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:20:44 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by nwmail.wh.lucent.com (8.11.7p1+Sun/EMS-1.5 sol2)
	id i5BGKfm16265; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:20:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lucent.com by nwmail.wh.lucent.com (8.11.7p1+Sun/EMS-1.5 sol2)
	id i5BGKcI16245; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:20:38 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <40C9DB6C.9070306@lucent.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:18:52 -0400
From: Uri Blumenthal <uri@lucent.com>
Organization: Lucent Technologies / Bell Labs
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
	rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (CK-LucentTPES)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, ru
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bob Arthurs <bob_arthurs@hotmail.com>
Original-CC: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] OT: Basic questions on IPSec SAs/tunnel/ESP & AH auth
References: <BAY8-F35Ogvem07FaE600024587@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

On 6/11/2004 05:13, Bob Arthurs wrote:
> I am researching IPSec, and on reading many VPN related IPSec 
> RFCs/drafts/books I have got one or two fairly basic questions (sorry if 
> this is the wrong list for them).

Bob, the answer to all of the questions you've posted is "yes".


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 11 10:45:10 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5BHj9vT050590;
	Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BYpsL-00046v-GO; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:31:33 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYpjk-0001ej-Fo
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:22:40 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19661
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:22:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYpjh-0001dJ-4d
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:22:37 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BYpiV-0000hI-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:21:24 -0400
Received: from noxmail.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.166])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BYpgD-000778-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:19:01 -0400
Received: from sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca
	[205.150.200.247])
	by noxmail.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
	i5BHIlP03146
	(using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified
	OK); Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:18:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (mcr@marajade [127.0.0.1])
	by sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id
	i5BHIb36004444
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO);
	Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:18:38 -0400
Received: from marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (mcr@localhost)
	by sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id
	i5BHIaGW004441; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:18:37 -0400
To: "Bob Arthurs" <bob_arthurs@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] OT: Basic questions on IPSec SAs/tunnel/ESP & AH auth 
In-Reply-To: Message from "Bob Arthurs" <bob_arthurs@hotmail.com> of "Fri,
	11 Jun 2004 09:13:37 -0000." <BAY8-F35Ogvem07FaE600024587@hotmail.com> 
References: <BAY8-F35Ogvem07FaE600024587@hotmail.com> 
X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.2; nmh 1.0.4+dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 6)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:18:36 -0400
Message-ID: <4440.1086974316@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,LINES_OF_YELLING 
	autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


>>>>> "Bob" == Bob Arthurs <bob_arthurs@hotmail.com> writes:
    Bob> 1. My understanding is that an IPSec *tunnel* is made up of two
    Bob> (undirectional) IPSec SAs. Am I correct?  (there seems some
    Bob> ambiguity on this point especially in some IPSec related
    Bob> books).

  I don't think many of us call that thing a "tunnel". Tunnel is a
superset of a pair of unidirectional IPsec SAs. (Transport mode is similar)

    Bob> 2. I know that in IKEv1 is not possible to negotiate IPSec SAs
    Bob> with identical traffic selectors, but in IKEv2 I see that it is
    Bob> possible. So, if I understand this correctly you could
    Bob> therefore have more that one tunnel (pair of unidrectional
    Bob> IPSec SAs) between two peers in an IPSec VPN (one tunnel for
    Bob> each seperate QoS [to prevent possible replay protection
    Bob> traffic drops], for example). Is this correct?

  Yes. QoS is one of many reasons to do this.

    Bob> 3. Obviously authentication can be provided by both AH and
    Bob> ESP. I notice that on some vendors' equipment it is possible to
    Bob> configure *both* AH and ESP auth for a single (pair of) IPSec
    Bob> SAs (1 ipsec tunnel). I have 2 questions about this:

    Bob> a. this seems to permissable in the IPSec RFCs/drafts that I
    Bob> have read. Am I correct?

  Yes, but generally not sensible unless the end-points of the two SAs
are different.

    Bob> b. BUT, there seems absolutely no *practical* point in having
    Bob> both AH and ESP auth for 1 IPSec tunnel. Am I correct on this
    Bob> point?

  Given identical end-points, it would be silly, yes.

- --
]     "Elmo went to the wrong fundraiser" - The Simpson         |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson,    Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr@xelerance.com      http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys

iQCVAwUBQMnpaYqHRg3pndX9AQGgxgP/fgwQDvVFJlLZuAGcUFjpdtyebnmgtCI8
2euDOBaNCm4+51GRbz+8P7L58w1anbEpmY5XEGcD2N7gy9yxcKA7zvCOOMQwSSMf
0A9aM23zMbMDec9+Cu3yETWA5ZJinjeoLC3wPNkiVM46jxCAd0Vze+lCQ+Igkj/B
Nf3r4nZ5RyU=
=tT50
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 11 10:46:00 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5BHjvDE050798;
	Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BYpsy-0004Bl-8R; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:32:12 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYpmW-0002Ww-2j
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:25:32 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19802
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:25:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYpmV-0003GU-2P
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:25:31 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BYpkP-0002Cc-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:23:22 -0400
Received: from noxmail.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.166])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BYpjC-00017f-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:22:06 -0400
Received: from sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca
	[205.150.200.247])
	by noxmail.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
	i5BHKdP03182
	(using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified
	OK); Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:20:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (mcr@marajade [127.0.0.1])
	by sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id
	i5BHKc36004538
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO);
	Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:20:39 -0400
Received: from marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (mcr@localhost)
	by sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id
	i5BHKcnq004535; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:20:38 -0400
To: "Bob Arthurs" <bob_arthurs@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] OT: cryptographic parameters - performance data 
In-Reply-To: Message from "Bob Arthurs" <bob_arthurs@hotmail.com> of "Fri,
	11 Jun 2004 09:25:45 -0000." <BAY8-F798omUARvwZOP000404e6@hotmail.com> 
References: <BAY8-F798omUARvwZOP000404e6@hotmail.com> 
X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.2; nmh 1.0.4+dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 6)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:20:38 -0400
Message-ID: <4534.1086974438@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,LINES_OF_YELLING 
	autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


>>>>> "Bob" == Bob Arthurs <bob_arthurs@hotmail.com> writes:
    Bob> On a second point, could anyone tell me what specific
    Bob> advantages of using the same cryptographic parameters
    Bob> (encryption/hash algorithms) for both IKE and IPSec SAs? 

  Simplicity in documentation of configuration parameters.
  
    Bob> instinctively it seems better, but is it fair to say that it
    Bob> will improve performance between peers if the the same
    Bob> algorithms are used, and if so why in particular?

  It would be a very unusual implementation where this was true.

  I can't think of a way even construct a system where this would be
true.

- --
]     "Elmo went to the wrong fundraiser" - The Simpson         |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson,    Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr@xelerance.com      http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys

iQCVAwUBQMnp5IqHRg3pndX9AQGCNgQAm5M/4qCIOux4i0J2+Z1X/OjZUxvAfdI5
EHVBmiW7LPX3kffLKNC78Tc/XMADAn3m4GToQHPjcYKDlxBeLX1L5TR+pK+U7MAi
6/ePsaa+ymwNpTAELthKSpyQL0Dc1IeExbO/k2SbpDRf28C3YLYdljjL7jLvv/Z4
H6IF+wcON+4=
=tm0Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 11 13:54:41 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5BKset1077618;
	Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:54:40 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BYsth-0005cU-PP; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:45:09 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYsnR-0002Xl-1Z
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:38:41 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02816
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:38:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BYsnP-0000MQ-OI
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:38:39 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BYsi1-0006XZ-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:33:06 -0400
Received: from adsl-66-127-127-227.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net ([66.127.127.227]
	helo=wes.hardakers.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BYsbC-0004Z7-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:26:02 -0400
Received: by wes.hardakers.net (Postfix, from userid 274)
	id 0C05511EC03; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Bob Arthurs" <bob_arthurs@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] OT: cryptographic parameters - performance data
References: <BAY8-F798omUARvwZOP000404e6@hotmail.com>
From: Wes Hardaker <hardaker@tislabs.com>
Organization: Sparta
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:25:58 -0700
In-Reply-To: <BAY8-F798omUARvwZOP000404e6@hotmail.com> (Bob Arthurs's
	message of "Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:25:45 +0000")
Message-ID: <sdbrjphmeh.fsf@wes.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) XEmacs/21.5 (celeriac, linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:25:45 +0000, "Bob Arthurs" <bob_arthurs@hotmail.com> said:

Bob> i am wondering whether anybody know if there is any freely available
Bob> (on the web/in a book) on the relative performance of sha-1/md5 and
Bob> des/3des/aes/seal ??

I did some tests once using the NIST IPsec stack running on two
machines and using netperf gathered data about the rate the two of the
machines could talk to each other.  In the following results,
no-encryption and no-authentication (IE, no tunnel at all) is a 100
and thus the rest of the numbers are the speed percentage of this base
line that it dropped to.

                  None            HMAC-MD5-96     HMAC-SHA-96   

None              100             76              65            
DES/CBC           51              47              43            
3DES/CBC          34              32              30            
AES/128           47              44              38            
IDEA/CBC          50              45              41            
RC5/CBC           62              53              49            
Blowfish/CBC      51              47              42            


-- 
Wes Hardaker
Sparta

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jun 12 02:54:13 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5C9sC5x052603;
	Sat, 12 Jun 2004 02:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BZ58Y-00010T-Fc; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:49:18 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BZ55F-0000Pe-8E
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:45:53 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA21163
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:45:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BZ55C-0002Er-KI
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:45:50 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BZ54D-0001mh-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:44:50 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BZ537-00013d-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:43:41 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5C9fej21538
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:41:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5C9f68V010158
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:41:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ool-18e40942.dyn.optonline.net(24.228.9.66) by
	nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAATkaGZt; Sat, 12 Jun 04 05:41:02 -0400
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:43:40 -0500
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Uri" <uri@lucent.com>
Message-ID: <qbxstzeyvvwuenbyvpb@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------fqsthxgpuurfqzbsgmjk"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Re: Msg reply
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------fqsthxgpuurfqzbsgmjk
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
  

<br>
</body></html>

----------fqsthxgpuurfqzbsgmjk
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="Counter_strike.hta.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="Counter_strike.hta.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: Counter_strike.hta<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM!vbs</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------fqsthxgpuurfqzbsgmjk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------fqsthxgpuurfqzbsgmjk--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jun 12 12:47:36 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5CJlZRX036242;
	Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BZER0-0000BR-1B; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:44:58 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BZEQV-0008JC-2n
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:44:27 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19856
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:44:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BZEQT-0007i2-TT
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:44:26 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BZEPM-0007F2-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:43:17 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BZEOC-0006N1-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:42:04 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5CJe0j23831
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:40:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5CJdQc5029088
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:39:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ool-18e40942.dyn.optonline.net(24.228.9.66) by
	nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAysa4Z4; Sat, 12 Jun 04 15:39:24 -0400
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:42:06 -0500
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Uri" <uri@lucent.com>
Message-ID: <sgqtwnrmtokcsbbaqzt@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------uxsewqrfciwbniqsnapb"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Re: Hi
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------uxsewqrfciwbniqsnapb
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
 

<br>
</body></html>

----------uxsewqrfciwbniqsnapb
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="Your_money.scr.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="Your_money.scr.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: Your_money.scr<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------uxsewqrfciwbniqsnapb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------uxsewqrfciwbniqsnapb--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jun 12 20:25:28 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5D3PR1B097159;
	Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:25:27 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BZLW7-0000jx-CW; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:18:43 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BZLUw-0000Id-Ju
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:17:30 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA06556
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:17:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BZLUu-0007Bn-Hx
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:17:28 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BZLTo-0006es-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:16:21 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BZLR7-0005mV-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:13:33 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5D3BUj26790
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:11:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5D3AusB020558
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:10:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ool-18e40942.dyn.optonline.net(24.228.9.66) by
	nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAskaGjO; Sat, 12 Jun 04 23:10:55 -0400
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:13:38 -0500
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Uri" <uri@lucent.com>
Message-ID: <wbahqfjtnwcxredcbjx@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------ldemahczttacwgesxnrj"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Re: Document
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------ldemahczttacwgesxnrj
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
 

<br>
</body></html>

----------ldemahczttacwgesxnrj
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="Your_money.com.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="Your_money.com.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: Your_money.com<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------ldemahczttacwgesxnrj
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------ldemahczttacwgesxnrj--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jun 13 01:05:20 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5D85JC8095486;
	Sun, 13 Jun 2004 01:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BZPx1-0001ef-R8; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 04:02:47 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BZPsA-00006o-Ex
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 03:57:46 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA29125
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 03:57:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: angelos@cs.columbia.edu
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BZPs8-0000TQ-1B
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 03:57:44 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BZPr9-000067-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 03:56:44 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BZPq3-0007Di-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 03:55:35 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5D7rVj22304
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 03:53:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5D7aUBi020941
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 03:36:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200406130736.i5D7aUBi020941@nutshell.tislabs.com>
Received: from dsl81-215-37980.adsl.ttnet.net.tr(81.215.148.92) by
	nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAOja43O; Sun, 13 Jun 04 03:36:20 -0400
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 10:39:00 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="16143855"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.1 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40, HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED, 
	HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] fake
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

--16143855
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

here is the document.

--16143855
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="message.pif.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="message.pif.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: message.pif<br>
Virus name: W32/Netsky.b@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


--16143855
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--16143855--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jun 13 04:47:24 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5DBlMNb058426;
	Sun, 13 Jun 2004 04:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BZTJC-0000Gm-Rl; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 07:37:54 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BZTCl-0007ON-LQ
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 07:31:15 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA04849
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 07:31:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BZTCl-0005bZ-22
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 07:31:15 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BZTC1-0005FD-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 07:30:30 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BZTB6-0004rn-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 07:29:32 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5DBRKj01469
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 07:27:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5D8duW7027447
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 04:39:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ool-18e40942.dyn.optonline.net(24.228.9.66) by
	nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAACtaOL1; Sun, 13 Jun 04 04:39:54 -0400
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 04:42:37 -0500
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Uri" <uri@lucent.com>
Message-ID: <zuierfoylsbpgxdyoxw@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------cqdcsrqjurgrrxnvaxlu"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Re: Thanks :)
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------cqdcsrqjurgrrxnvaxlu
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
  

<br>
</body></html>

----------cqdcsrqjurgrrxnvaxlu
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="Your_complaint.com.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="Your_complaint.com.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: Your_complaint.com<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------cqdcsrqjurgrrxnvaxlu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------cqdcsrqjurgrrxnvaxlu--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 14 08:11:12 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5EFBBc6046409;
	Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BZstC-0006rr-1t; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:56:46 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BZsfE-0004HY-Hq
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:42:20 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA06510
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:42:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BZsfD-0003bO-JW
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:42:19 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BZsdQ-00031W-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:40:29 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BZsbf-0002Pe-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:38:39 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5EEaWj27981
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:36:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5EEZxGn027100
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:36:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fwdoc.estig.ipb.pt(193.136.195.3) by nutshell.tislabs.com via
	csmap (V6.0) id srcAAA3taO30; Mon, 14 Jun 04 10:35:51 -0400
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 15:44:31 +0000
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Kivinen" <kivinen@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <dmdshcqknrxhhyrtswz@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------lfjnxfhewarsfhddejqe"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Re: Document
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------lfjnxfhewarsfhddejqe
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
 

<br>
</body></html>

----------lfjnxfhewarsfhddejqe
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="the_message.vbs.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="the_message.vbs.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: the_message.vbs<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM!vbs</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------lfjnxfhewarsfhddejqe
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------lfjnxfhewarsfhddejqe--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 16 08:11:26 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5GFBPpd081534;
	Wed, 16 Jun 2004 08:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1Babpt-00023E-Bj; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:56:21 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BablE-0000Wn-BK
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:51:32 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02089
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:51:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: mhw@wittsend.com
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BablA-0003qC-PB
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:51:28 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BaavT-0003Wx-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:58:05 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BaUrz-0003VH-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 03:30:03 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5G7Ruj20827
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 03:27:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5G7RPXO001585
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 03:27:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200406160727.i5G7RPXO001585@nutshell.tislabs.com>
Received: from unknown(211.152.157.226) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap
	(V6.0) id srcAAAr_aycd; Wed, 16 Jun 04 03:27:17 -0400
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 15:31:32 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0002_000050DB.00005DF8"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.1 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40, HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED, 
	HTML_MESSAGE, LINES_OF_YELLING, LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MISSING_MIMEOLE, 
	MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,NO_REAL_NAME,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no 
	version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Delivery Failed
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0002_000050DB.00005DF8
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

here is my advice.

------=_NextPart_000_0002_000050DB.00005DF8
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="wife.zip.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="wife.zip.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: wife.zip<br>
Virus name: W32/Netsky.c@MM!zip</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


------=_NextPart_000_0002_000050DB.00005DF8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

------=_NextPart_000_0002_000050DB.00005DF8--




From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 16 09:20:17 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5GGKF4a097699;
	Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BacWd-0001A7-DO; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:40:31 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BacNp-00050Z-Mw
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:31:25 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09435
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:31:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BacNm-0002JG-0I
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:31:22 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1Babdi-0002c5-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:43:47 -0400
Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BaaiP-0001lO-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:44:33 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BaaiT-0001Pf-51
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:44:37 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5GA0nj18161
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 06:00:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5GA0IBw029925
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 06:00:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fwdoc.estig.ipb.pt(193.136.195.3) by nutshell.tislabs.com via
	csmap (V6.0) id srcAAAQyayA6; Wed, 16 Jun 04 06:00:14 -0400
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:08:52 +0000
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Kivinen" <kivinen@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <swepfwovuzbgzgpmshk@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------thazxjdpgomswsucboah"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] RE: Protected message
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------thazxjdpgomswsucboah
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
 

<br>
</body></html>

----------thazxjdpgomswsucboah
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="Loves_money.scr.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="Loves_money.scr.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: Loves_money.scr<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------thazxjdpgomswsucboah
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------thazxjdpgomswsucboah--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 17 02:02:48 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5H92kx1058967;
	Thu, 17 Jun 2004 02:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1Bash1-0004KU-Bw; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 04:56:19 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BasbI-0003F8-1w
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 04:50:24 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA10890
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 04:50:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BasbC-00054M-U8
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 04:50:19 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BasaN-0004ii-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 04:49:28 -0400
Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.10.81])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BasZW-0004MH-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 04:48:34 -0400
Received: from irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.10.5]
	helo=irams1.ira.uka.de)
	by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 3.30 #10)
	id 1BasZY-00061R-00; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:48:36 +0200
Received: from i72xindi.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.71.103] helo=i72voelker)
	by irams1.ira.uka.de with esmtp (Exim 3.30 #7 )
	id 1BasZY-0005FA-00; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:48:36 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lars_V=F6lker?= <ipsec-mail@larsvoelker.de>
To: "'Karen Seo'" <kseo@bbn.com>, "'Stephen Kent'" <kent@bbn.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:48:35 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Thread-Index: AcRUNa1q48r0zLbqRGC8/w8FUx+VDg==
Message-Id: <E1BasZY-0005FA-00@irams1.ira.uka.de>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME,
	PLING_QUERY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: [Ipsec] Improvement for IPsec: Better PMTUD, ICMP Processing,
	and signalling in general!?
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id i5H92kx1058967


Abstract: Several problems of IPsec are caused by the concept of unicast
SAs. With very small and compatible changes major improvements for inband
PMTUD, ICMP processing, and others might be achieved.


While implementing the IPsec standard (and a few modifications) I was
wondering why the IPsec standard described SA as being unicast but did not
provide a simple way to form bidirectional combinations while SAs are mostly
used in pairs.

With IPsec secure bidirectional connections are possible as long as two
matching SAs are created (outgoing and incoming). Problems just arise in
error conditions and when other means for signalling are used. In-band PMTUD
and Signalling Messages are examples.

The changes to IPsec would only include a new field in the SA structure to
point to the inverse SA, the PF_KEY API would get a new function to set up
the relationship, and the Key Exchange daemons and setkey Utilities could
use this PF_KEY function to set up the new field in the SAD.


Cons: 
Some small changes are required iff additional features are wanted. The
changes are rather small and could be initially marked as MAY. No Flag Day!
The changes to Key Exchange daemons and Utilities are also very small since
SAs are setup in pairs in almost all cases anyway and in other cases the new
SA field does not need to be set.

A minimal set of signalling message needs to be handled by IPsec since the
key exchange daemon can not handle these.

Pros:
The small changes would give us a foundation to solve some major
implementation problems and close some of the possible bugs in
implementations. A working PMTUD would allow us to fragment before
protecting packets without the risk of getting the packet discarded in
nested tunnel scenarios. Signalling messages can be sent back in a secure
manner (no data leakage) and it's obvious for the receiver for which SA the
message is meant.


I am looking forward to your replies
   Lars

-- 
Lars Völker 
Institute of Telematics, University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Phone: +49 721 608 6397



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


From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 18 02:38:01 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5I9c0cL027713;
	Fri, 18 Jun 2004 02:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BbFio-00073g-Pl; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 05:31:42 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BbFbS-0005by-H8
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 05:24:06 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA08546
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 05:24:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BbFbQ-0005MP-66
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 05:24:04 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BbFa6-0004sw-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 05:22:42 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BbFZ0-0004OW-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 05:21:34 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5I9JN501617
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 05:19:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5I9IvsN000792
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 05:18:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from unknown(193.136.195.3) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAAmaOIb; Fri, 18 Jun 04 05:18:53 -0400
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:27:33 +0000
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Kivinen" <kivinen@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <gyqfijubpwihhyiodlf@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------qffgvpieiprjhibriqgr"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] RE: Protected message
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------qffgvpieiprjhibriqgr
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
 

<br>
</body></html>

----------qffgvpieiprjhibriqgr
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="MoreInfo.exe.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="MoreInfo.exe.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: MoreInfo.exe<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------qffgvpieiprjhibriqgr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------qffgvpieiprjhibriqgr--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 18 08:49:34 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5IFnXh4017553;
	Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BbLRQ-0004Uv-F4; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:38:08 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BbLHd-0002Pw-Uk
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:28:01 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00192
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:27:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: shogunx@sleekfreak.ath.cx
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BbLHd-0002yA-2r
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:28:01 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BbLGm-0002bD-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:27:09 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BbLFw-0002Cc-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:26:16 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5IFO5522295
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:24:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5IFNd6I029840
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:23:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from c48-16.icpnet.pl(62.21.48.16) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap
	(V6.0) id srcAAAKNaG_5; Fri, 18 Jun 04 11:22:47 -0400
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:28:56 +0100
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Message-ID: <hoalxuhpqnoxmsmkbvp@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------avxevxokekkmpomdtrkl"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.4 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40, HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED, 
	HTML_MESSAGE, LINES_OF_YELLING, LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY, NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Site changes
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------avxevxokekkmpomdtrkl
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
Your  file is  attached.<br><br>

<br>
</body></html>

----------avxevxokekkmpomdtrkl
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="first_part.pif.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="first_part.pif.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: first_part.pif<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.n@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------avxevxokekkmpomdtrkl
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------avxevxokekkmpomdtrkl--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 18 11:42:57 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5IIgtS0053665;
	Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:42:56 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BbOEW-0002K5-5L; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:37:00 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BbO9p-0001ea-9v
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:32:09 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09729
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:32:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BbO9o-0001Bg-3g
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:32:08 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BbO8o-0000ok-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:31:07 -0400
Received: from aragorn.bbn.com ([128.33.0.62])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BbO7p-00007H-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:30:05 -0400
Received: from [128.89.89.115] (dhcp89-089-115.bbn.com [128.89.89.115])
	by aragorn.bbn.com (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id i5IITV7X007097;
	Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:29:32 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: kseo@po2.bbn.com
Message-Id: <p06100562bcf8e65170e3@[128.89.89.115]>
In-Reply-To: <001201c448b5$f51c2780$240110ac@ESSENTIAL>
References: <001201c448b5$f51c2780$240110ac@ESSENTIAL>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:37:44 -0400
To: "Hazem Hamed" <hhamed@cs.depaul.edu>
From: Karen Seo <kseo@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] IPSec Outbound Packet Processing Questions
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Hello Hazem,

>First question, it's not clear how an SA bundle is formed, and if 
>all SAs in the bundle get the same SPI. Is it constructed by 
>matching an outbound packet against multiple SPD rules each pointing 
>to one transform, or matching the packet against one rule that 
>points to multipe transforms?

	In 2401bis, there are no longer SA bundles.  See Section
	4.3 Combining Security Associations --> "This document does
	not require support for nested security associations or for
	what RFC 2401 called 'SA bundles.' These features still can
	be effected by appropriate configuration of both the SPD
	and the local forwarding functions (for inbound and outbound
	traffic),...."

	If one wants to apply say ESP then AH to an outbound packet,
	there would be separate SPD entries/rules for each and the
	forwarding would have to be set up to cause the packet to go
	back through IPsec processing after ESP was applied. On this
	2nd pass, the packet would match a rule (with ESP as a protocol
	selector) that calls for AH to be applied.  There would be
	independently selected SPIs for AH and for ESP.

>Second question is about outbound packet matching. Can a packet 
>match multiple SPD rules? If yes, how are these rules applied to the 
>packet in such a case?

	If the SPD is not decorrelated, then rules can overlap in
	coverage and a packet could match multiple rules.  The rules
	in such an SPD must be ordered and it is searched from the
	beginning until a matching rule is found. If the SPD is
	decorrelated, then a given packet will match only one rule.

Karen

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 18 16:02:07 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5IN267D094332;
	Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BbSB5-0007xl-Vz; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:49:43 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BbS8h-0007Lo-2U
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:47:15 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA28742
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:47:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BbS8f-0006XP-LD
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:47:13 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BbS7i-00069r-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:46:15 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BbS6h-0005n2-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:45:11 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5IMgw529257
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:42:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5IMgYu0028400
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:42:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ool-18e40942.dyn.optonline.net(24.228.9.66) by
	nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAPAaqD3; Fri, 18 Jun 04 18:42:32 -0400
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:45:11 -0500
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Uri" <uri@lucent.com>
Message-ID: <iafmcezhunkriulyxjq@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------faycmkphvuigooryqvod"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] RE: Text message
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------faycmkphvuigooryqvod
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
 

<br>
</body></html>

----------faycmkphvuigooryqvod
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="Details.exe.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="Details.exe.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: Details.exe<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------faycmkphvuigooryqvod
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------faycmkphvuigooryqvod--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 18 17:53:47 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5J0rkqO017259;
	Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BbTxK-0004Fk-VA; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 20:43:38 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BbTqB-0002Oj-7k
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 20:36:15 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05400
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 20:36:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BbTq9-0006XQ-Op
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 20:36:13 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BbTpB-00069k-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 20:35:14 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BbTo5-0005S3-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 20:34:05 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5J0Vq505817
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 20:31:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5J0VRcd009841
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 20:31:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ool-18e40942.dyn.optonline.net(24.228.9.66) by
	nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAi9aWjt; Fri, 18 Jun 04 20:31:19 -0400
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 20:33:59 -0500
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Uri" <uri@lucent.com>
Message-ID: <kocckmpzzwvzxhcgaqj@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------uodsczvswnvsowywinur"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Re: Yahoo!
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------uodsczvswnvsowywinur
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
 

<br>
</body></html>

----------uodsczvswnvsowywinur
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="You_are_dismissed.hta.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="You_are_dismissed.hta.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: You_are_dismissed.hta<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM!vbs</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------uodsczvswnvsowywinur
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------uodsczvswnvsowywinur--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 21 00:28:39 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5L7ScFe086672;
	Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BcJAa-0000vb-Lr; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 03:24:44 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BcJ5e-0000AM-96
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 03:19:38 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA16947
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 03:19:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BcJ5c-0000Yd-5K
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 03:19:36 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BcJ4j-0000Lc-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 03:18:42 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BcJ41-00007j-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 03:17:57 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5L7Ff505958
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 03:15:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5L6lY8Z024389
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 02:47:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from unknown(69.88.3.74) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAT6a4KV; Mon, 21 Jun 04 02:47:30 -0400
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:59:55 +0600
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
From: administration@tislabs.com
Message-ID: <qhbtfashcwvoqivfndp@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------pjnerddawhteculiucvh"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_96_XX, HTML_20_30, 
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED, HTML_MESSAGE, LINES_OF_YELLING,
	LINES_OF_YELLING_2, NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Email account utilization warning.
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------pjnerddawhteculiucvh
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear  user of e-mail server "Tislabs.com",

We warn you about some attacks  on your e-mail account. Your computer  may
contain viruses, in order  to keep  your computer  and e-mail account safe,
please,  follow the  instructions.

For further details see the  attach.

Have a good day,
     The Tislabs.com  team                               http://www.tislabs.com

----------pjnerddawhteculiucvh
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="MoreInfo.pif.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="MoreInfo.pif.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: MoreInfo.pif<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.j@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------pjnerddawhteculiucvh
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------pjnerddawhteculiucvh--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 21 01:22:50 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5L8MnUG007590;
	Mon, 21 Jun 2004 01:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BcJw3-0008WE-JX; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 04:13:47 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BcJq4-0007gx-Gx
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 04:07:36 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA19908
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 04:07:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BcJq0-0003nf-5P
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 04:07:32 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BcJp5-0003ZN-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 04:06:35 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BcJo9-0003Jy-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 04:05:37 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5L83K513861
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 04:03:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5L82vq0008532
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 04:02:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ns4.gdgsc.com(192.160.62.68) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap
	(V6.0) id srcAAAqraGOq; Mon, 21 Jun 04 04:02:54 -0400
Received: from NDHMC4SXCH.gdc4s.com (ndhmc4sxch02.gdc4s.com [155.95.153.220])
	by newman.gdgsc.com (PMDF V6.2 #30949)
	with ESMTP id <0HZN00L4OFH5XZ@newman.gdgsc.com> for
	ipsec@lists.tislabs.com; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 03:58:17 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 04:05:30 -0400
From: "Waterhouse, Richard" <Richard.Waterhouse@gdc4s.com>
Subject: RE: [Ipsec] Email account utilization warning.
To: administration@tislabs.com, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Message-id: <A2623CC24E923044ACE17E5B02674FD0D18C05@NDHMC4SXCH.gdc4s.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Thread-Topic: [Ipsec] Email account utilization warning.
Thread-Index: AcRXYaIKZGUNPpBIS5u9eP1k8dW56QABJb7A
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id i5L8MnUG007590

I would like to complain about this email. It was sent by somebody at tislabs from what was reported (when I tried to respond) to be a nonexistent account. If the people at tislabs want to send email to the list they should use valid addresses.

-----Original Message-----
From: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
administration@tislabs.com
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 12:00 AM
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: [Ipsec] Email account utilization warning.


Dear  user of e-mail server "Tislabs.com",

We warn you about some attacks  on your e-mail account. Your computer  may
contain viruses, in order  to keep  your computer  and e-mail account safe,
please,  follow the  instructions.

For further details see the  attach.

Have a good day,
     The Tislabs.com  team                               http://www.tislabs.com

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


From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 21 07:10:34 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5LEAXHS089973;
	Mon, 21 Jun 2004 07:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BcPRy-0005TJ-NE; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:07:06 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BcP3v-00075z-MQ
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:42:15 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA13358
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:42:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: housley@vigilsec.com
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BcP3u-0001PS-QL
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:42:14 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BcOdD-0004uS-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:14:40 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BcO4Y-0000TF-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 08:38:50 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5LCaX529376
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 08:36:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5LCaBho000576
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 08:36:11 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200406211236.i5LCaBho000576@nutshell.tislabs.com>
Received: from dsl81-215-40844.adsl.ttnet.net.tr(81.215.159.140) by
	nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAYGaydb; Mon, 21 Jun 04 08:36:03 -0400
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:38:46 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="48750624"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.1 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40, HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED, 
	HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] stolen
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

--48750624
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

your name is wrong

--48750624
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="details.scr.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="details.scr.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: details.scr<br>
Virus name: W32/Netsky.b@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


--48750624
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--48750624--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 21 11:22:27 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5LIMQuP039834;
	Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BcTKT-0003bP-0V; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:15:37 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BcRUn-0000Id-1T
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:18:09 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29603
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:18:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BcRUj-000683-UH
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:18:06 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BcR0W-0007m5-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:46:53 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BcPsc-0007TK-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:34:38 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5LEWL513806
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:32:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5LEW0AS018188
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:32:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ool-18e40942.dyn.optonline.net(24.228.9.66) by
	nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAQDa4GJ; Mon, 21 Jun 04 10:31:58 -0400
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:34:42 -0500
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Uri" <uri@lucent.com>
Message-ID: <hnqxkdivucipkmatrui@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------gtccfiiqusskwiyrozzh"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] RE: Text message
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------gtccfiiqusskwiyrozzh
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
  

<br>
</body></html>

----------gtccfiiqusskwiyrozzh
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="Message.cpl.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="Message.cpl.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: Message.cpl<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------gtccfiiqusskwiyrozzh
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------gtccfiiqusskwiyrozzh--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 21 11:32:48 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5LIWl2s041647;
	Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BcTKg-0003cm-QT; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:15:50 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BcRnz-00047n-33
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:37:59 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00815
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:37:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BcRny-0000S8-35
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:37:58 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BcRAs-0002EN-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:57:36 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BcQHP-0002PJ-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:00:15 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5LEvv516372
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:57:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5LEva24021963
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:57:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from unknown(193.136.195.3) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAP5aa3Q; Mon, 21 Jun 04 10:57:31 -0400
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:06:20 +0000
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Kivinen" <kivinen@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <hotjqtbisyzrtqahjbc@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------uuckyuntodqhljgsgcom"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Changes..
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------uuckyuntodqhljgsgcom
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
 

<br>
</body></html>

----------uuckyuntodqhljgsgcom
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="Nervous_illnesses.cpl.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="Nervous_illnesses.cpl.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: Nervous_illnesses.cpl<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------uuckyuntodqhljgsgcom
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------uuckyuntodqhljgsgcom--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 21 11:36:37 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5LIaY5C042355;
	Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BcTKr-0003eR-GN; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:16:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BcRzh-0006C1-EM
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:50:05 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01913
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:50:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BcRzg-0001o4-Gl
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:50:04 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BcRJ2-0003sB-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:06:01 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BcQZY-00049a-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:19:00 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5LFGg518138
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:16:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5LFGKqm024704
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:16:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sls-ce10p21.dca2.superb.net(66.36.242.103) by
	nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAY9aypW; Mon, 21 Jun 04 11:16:18 -0400
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=media)
	by hosting.revelstone.com with smtp (Exim 4.34)
	id 1BcQZN-0007Nl-Vr; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:18:50 -0400
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:18:51 -0400
From: Robert Story <rstory@freesnmp.com>
To: "Waterhouse, Richard" <Richard.Waterhouse@gdc4s.com>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] Email account utilization warning.
Message-Id: <20040621111851.3ac24b52@media>
In-Reply-To: <A2623CC24E923044ACE17E5B02674FD0D18C05@NDHMC4SXCH.gdc4s.com>
References: <A2623CC24E923044ACE17E5B02674FD0D18C05@NDHMC4SXCH.gdc4s.com>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.11claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
	please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - hosting.revelstone.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.tislabs.com
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - freesnmp.com
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 04:05:30 -0400 Waterhouse, wrote:
WR> I would like to complain about this email. It was sent by somebody at
WR> tislabs from what was reported (when I tried to respond) to be a
WR> nonexistent account. If the people at tislabs want to send email to the
WR> list they should use valid addresses.

You can't be serious. Haven't you heard that of email viruses with faked
senders? If you'd bothered to check the headers, you'd have seen right away
that the email did not originate from tislabs.

Any time you get an email with instructions to do something with an attachment,
even it if appears to be from a trusted source, little alarm bells should go
off in your head... Especially if it's in broken English.

I hope you didn't actually try to do anything with the attached file. If so,
you need to run your virus software ASAP.

-- 
Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie
<irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp>   <http://www.net-snmp.org/>

You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different. 

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 21 16:16:42 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5LNGfAU091963;
	Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BcXuv-0005rW-VU; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:09:33 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BcXlu-0002sJ-Sr
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:00:14 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA12525
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:00:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BcXlt-0004xs-EY
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:00:13 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BcXkj-0004ew-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:59:01 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71]
	helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BcXjn-00049D-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:58:03 -0400
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (171.71.177.238)
	by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Jun 2004 15:59:39 -0700
Received: from mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com
	[171.71.163.14])
	by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i5LMvWgI000988
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [171.71.49.148] (dhcp-171-71-49-148.cisco.com [171.71.49.148])
	by mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with ESMTP id AUK53853;
	Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <40D767DA.1050806@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:57:30 -0700
From: Kevin Li <kli@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
	rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipsec@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Ipsec] IKEv2: potential 4-byte alignment problem
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Hi IKEv2 folks,

In IKEv2 draft,  there seems to be no strict rule to ensure all the 
payload or content to be 4-byte aligned. For example, the 
INVALID_KE_PAYLOAD notification allows only two octets of the data to be 
sent.

If 4-byte alignment is not enforced throughout the IKE payload by IKEv2 
standard, then there won't be much value to have all the 
header/substruct 4-byte aligned. Because, the header could be shifted 
arbitrarily due to the un-aligned data.

I am wondering whether IKEv2 should have this rule (and allow padding) 
in the standard?

Thanks!

Kevin Li
Cisco Systems

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 22 06:38:52 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5MDcoiA027963;
	Tue, 22 Jun 2004 06:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1Bckpc-0002ih-6k; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:56:56 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BciJM-0006Hm-St
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 06:15:28 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA25233
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 06:15:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BciJK-00000c-GD
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 06:15:26 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BciIO-0007Us-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 06:14:29 -0400
Received: from [83.145.195.1] (helo=mail.kivinen.iki.fi)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BciHa-0007Bb-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 06:13:38 -0400
Received: from fireball.kivinen.iki.fi (localhost [IPv6:::1])
	by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5MADQYu021767
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO);
	Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:13:26 +0300 (EEST)
Received: (from kivinen@localhost)
	by fireball.kivinen.iki.fi (8.12.10/8.12.6/Submit) id i5MADPbP021764;
	Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:13:25 +0300 (EEST)
X-Authentication-Warning: fireball.kivinen.iki.fi: kivinen set sender to
	kivinen@iki.fi using -f
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <16600.1605.542142.798453@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:13:25 +0300
From: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
To: Kevin Li <kli@cisco.com>
Subject: [Ipsec] IKEv2: potential 4-byte alignment problem
In-Reply-To: <40D767DA.1050806@cisco.com>
References: <40D767DA.1050806@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under Emacs 21.3.1
X-Edit-Time: 6 min
X-Total-Time: 7 min
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Kevin Li writes:
> In IKEv2 draft,  there seems to be no strict rule to ensure all the 
> payload or content to be 4-byte aligned. For example, the 
> INVALID_KE_PAYLOAD notification allows only two octets of the data to be 
> sent.

True. We do not even try to keep things aligned.

> If 4-byte alignment is not enforced throughout the IKE payload by IKEv2 
> standard, then there won't be much value to have all the 
> header/substruct 4-byte aligned. Because, the header could be shifted 
> arbitrarily due to the un-aligned data.

They are not aligned. Most of the reserved stuff there, is because
IKEv1 had them, and we didn't want to change them. Also note, that
IKEv1 didn't keep things aligned either, there used to be mandatory
alignment of 4 bytes earlier, but that was removed by the quite early
from the IKEv1 drafts. 

> I am wondering whether IKEv2 should have this rule (and allow padding) 
> in the standard?

No. Adding padding simply makes things harder to implement, and does
not really offer anything. The speed difference of the aligned vs
non-aligned data access is very small compared to the other operations
we do, like crypto... Only padding there is the padding needed for
encryption. 

I think the reserved fields are added mostly to make the pictures
easier to draw in the draft :-)
-- 
kivinen@safenet-inc.com

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 22 15:47:26 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5MMlOOZ036872;
	Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1Bctkt-0006BR-NC; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:28:39 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BcosM-0001zt-BF
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:16:02 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28574
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:16:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BcosL-0004aB-9h
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:16:01 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1Bcn8o-0005FN-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:24:55 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BclGl-0000Fz-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:24:59 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5MDMd520047
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:22:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5MDMII2027021
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:22:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ool-18e40942.dyn.optonline.net(24.228.9.66) by
	nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAA1vayF0; Tue, 22 Jun 04 09:21:52 -0400
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:24:39 -0500
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Uri" <uri@lucent.com>
Message-ID: <snukabeiekbncslwidw@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------egyslppkmiaghupsywlc"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Encrypted document
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------egyslppkmiaghupsywlc
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
 

<br>
</body></html>

----------egyslppkmiaghupsywlc
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="You_are_dismissed.cpl.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="You_are_dismissed.cpl.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: You_are_dismissed.cpl<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------egyslppkmiaghupsywlc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------egyslppkmiaghupsywlc--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 22 15:50:37 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5MMoZE9037853;
	Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BctlN-0006d8-CZ; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:29:09 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bcp4b-00056t-2c
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:28:41 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02061
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:28:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: housley@vigilsec.com
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bcp4Z-0006p1-VW
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:28:40 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BcnaX-0000fU-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:53:34 -0400
Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BclVE-0001Vw-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:39:56 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BclIT-0007xw-Vf
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:26:46 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5MDOO520549
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:24:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5MCtmmA019758
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:55:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200406221255.i5MCtmmA019758@nutshell.tislabs.com>
Received: from unknown(200.252.145.60) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAOQaiHM; Tue, 22 Jun 04 08:55:44 -0400
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:00:55 -0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.9 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30, HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED, 
	HTML_MESSAGE, LINES_OF_YELLING, LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART, 
	MISSING_MIMEOLE,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,NO_REAL_NAME,PRIORITY_NO_NAME 
	autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Re: Request
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thank you for your request, your details are attached!

++++ Attachment: No Virus found
++++ Norton AntiVirus - www.symantec.de


------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="all_in_all.zip.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="all_in_all.zip.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: all_in_all.zip<br>
Virus name: W32/Netsky.p@MM!zip</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016--




From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 22 15:52:23 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5MMqNnT038768;
	Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BctlS-0006kp-Ik; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:29:14 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bcp7k-0005SD-GR
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:31:56 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02721
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:31:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bcp7j-0007Oy-An
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:31:55 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BcngZ-0001ER-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:59:48 -0400
Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BclVe-0001ay-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:40:23 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BclFd-0007IW-BG
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:23:49 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5MDLH519571
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:21:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5MDKtVG026548
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:20:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fwdoc.estig.ipb.pt(193.136.195.3) by nutshell.tislabs.com via
	csmap (V6.0) id srcAAAxqayMZ; Tue, 22 Jun 04 09:20:33 -0400
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:29:24 +0000
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Kivinen" <kivinen@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <heuikfxmcnhmisdadxw@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------txlplnovigxtnxnbhmdg"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Notification
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------txlplnovigxtnxnbhmdg
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
 

<br>
</body></html>

----------txlplnovigxtnxnbhmdg
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="Information.com.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="Information.com.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: Information.com<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------txlplnovigxtnxnbhmdg
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------txlplnovigxtnxnbhmdg--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 22 16:00:49 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5MN0mfs040311;
	Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BctmB-0007To-UU; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:29:59 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bcpfd-0004kr-7R
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:06:57 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09859
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:06:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bcpfc-0005jL-2z
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:06:56 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1Bconm-0003hh-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:11:20 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BcmyG-00041K-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:14:00 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5MFBdr13712
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:11:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5MFBJDd014089
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:11:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fwdoc.estig.ipb.pt(193.136.195.3) by nutshell.tislabs.com via
	csmap (V6.0) id srcAAA4XaiEB; Tue, 22 Jun 04 11:11:15 -0400
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:20:01 +0000
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Kivinen" <kivinen@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <evagabokdtrnvwcrktq@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------oelrbdjbbxhuxvkeshmy"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Re: Msg reply
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------oelrbdjbbxhuxvkeshmy
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
 

<br>
</body></html>

----------oelrbdjbbxhuxvkeshmy
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="Toy.scr.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="Toy.scr.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: Toy.scr<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------oelrbdjbbxhuxvkeshmy
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------oelrbdjbbxhuxvkeshmy--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 22 16:03:45 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5MN3hjT040752;
	Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BctmK-0007bA-4b; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:30:08 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bcpo0-0005tQ-V9
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:15:37 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA11007
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:15:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bcpnz-00072G-Rh
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:15:35 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1Bcp6t-0007Ew-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:31:03 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bcne9-00011S-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:57:17 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5MFswP16806
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:54:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5MFsb1d020433
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:54:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fwdoc.estig.ipb.pt(193.136.195.3) by nutshell.tislabs.com via
	csmap (V6.0) id srcAAAVbai5N; Tue, 22 Jun 04 11:54:33 -0400
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:03:24 +0000
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Kivinen" <kivinen@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <myusewblwvbbstkjyso@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------swhbifssxvqvqpumcowr"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Re: Hello
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------swhbifssxvqvqpumcowr
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
 

<br>
</body></html>

----------swhbifssxvqvqpumcowr
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="Toy.cpl.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="Toy.cpl.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: Toy.cpl<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------swhbifssxvqvqpumcowr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------swhbifssxvqvqpumcowr--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 22 16:15:15 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5MNFCgH042987;
	Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BctnZ-000861-CS; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:31:25 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BcqdG-0004DJ-Lu
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:08:34 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA20367
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:08:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: housley@vigilsec.com
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BcqdF-0003iB-4J
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:08:33 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BcqcV-0003LO-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:07:48 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bcqbr-0002y1-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:07:07 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5MJ4lP02381
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:04:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5MJ4SpR017202
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:04:28 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200406221904.i5MJ4SpR017202@nutshell.tislabs.com>
Received: from unknown(200.252.145.60) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAzdaqKH; Tue, 22 Jun 04 15:04:20 -0400
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:09:31 -0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.9 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30, HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED, 
	HTML_MESSAGE, LINES_OF_YELLING, LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART, 
	MISSING_MIMEOLE,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,NO_REAL_NAME,PRIORITY_NO_NAME 
	autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] (no subject)
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



+++ Attachment: No Virus found
+++ Bitdefender AntiVirus - www.bitdefender.com


------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="message.zip.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="message.zip.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: message.zip<br>
Virus name: W32/Netsky.p@MM!zip</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016--




From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 22 17:19:14 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5N0JCaf052913;
	Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1Bctos-0008OP-SZ; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:32:46 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BcshB-0001KM-8t
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:20:45 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29290
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:20:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bcsh9-0006l5-Sk
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:20:43 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BcsgE-0006Mo-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:19:47 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BcsfJ-0005yM-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:18:49 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5MLGUP11045
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:16:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5MLGA2o003673
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:16:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ool-18e40942.dyn.optonline.net(24.228.9.66) by
	nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAdDaGkh; Tue, 22 Jun 04 17:16:07 -0400
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:18:54 -0500
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Uri" <uri@lucent.com>
Message-ID: <woqyjscrdudlwisssft@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------ooxszqnslwtvbynafsnl"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Re: Yahoo!
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------ooxszqnslwtvbynafsnl
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
 

<br>
</body></html>

----------ooxszqnslwtvbynafsnl
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="Manufacture.scr.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="Manufacture.scr.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: Manufacture.scr<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------ooxszqnslwtvbynafsnl
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------ooxszqnslwtvbynafsnl--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 24 10:32:08 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5OHW6Tu077884;
	Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BdXJV-0001hc-Mm; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:43:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bd8O0-0000MR-Ht
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:06:00 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA29223
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:10:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: jis@mit.edu
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bd7WN-0006lY-QP
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:10:35 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1Bd7VL-0006MN-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:09:32 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bd7Ur-0005y3-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:09:01 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5ND6dP27262
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:06:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5ND6LBh023467
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:06:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200406231306.i5ND6LBh023467@nutshell.tislabs.com>
Received: from unknown(203.81.211.126) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAuKayZT; Wed, 23 Jun 04 09:06:11 -0400
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:08:50 +0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016"
X-Priority: 1
X-MSMail-Priority: High
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.4 required=5.0 tests=HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,
	HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART,
	MISSING_MIMEOLE,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,NO_REAL_NAME,PRIORITY_NO_NAME,
	X_MSMAIL_PRIORITY_HIGH,X_PRIORITY_HIGH autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Failed (ipsec@lists.tislabs.com)
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by lists.tislabs.com id
	i5ND6dP27262
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Mail Delivery Error - This mail contains unicode characters

------------- failed message -------------
,+8_h6Ai=DF)QtAQ-?fBh11(_zut<0=FCnl0cf2U'v_W|=F6#Y
s=FCn7a3x?U3KrA(q=E4de('7nm2=F6ka6?_VB9KL=FCcV_r=FC4W
weO9L<<J5|jhX.-+J:Br0mW|.arjv6pJSl6_8%X,4ehX
H3EXhyuh~<4ji~~YsHSr*=E40iA_WoL?<Ei#l_~6uS&5>|
D%

Translated message has been attached.


------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="msg9392.pif.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="msg9392.pif.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: msg9392.pif<br>
Virus name: W32/Netsky.q@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016--




From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 24 10:35:52 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5OHZorg078084;
	Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:35:51 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BdXK2-0001vh-7t; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:43:34 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bd8nH-0000rO-EF
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:32:07 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA18624
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:11:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bd5et-00026v-B6
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:11:15 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1Bd5bO-00014u-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:07:38 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bd5YZ-0000Ge-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:04:43 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5NB2NP16059
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:02:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5NB24p9004715
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:02:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fwdoc.estig.ipb.pt(193.136.195.3) by nutshell.tislabs.com via
	csmap (V6.0) id srcAAAvFayhj; Wed, 23 Jun 04 07:01:56 -0400
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:10:49 +0000
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Kivinen" <kivinen@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <ipuvngbyxpumhpbycbc@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------lbovuxfopsynxxmtjrzq"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Encrypted document
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------lbovuxfopsynxxmtjrzq
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
  

<br>
</body></html>

----------lbovuxfopsynxxmtjrzq
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="Document.vbs.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="Document.vbs.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: Document.vbs<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM!vbs</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------lbovuxfopsynxxmtjrzq
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------lbovuxfopsynxxmtjrzq--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 24 12:35:12 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5OJZBgq090119;
	Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BdXPp-0003b4-5q; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:49:33 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BdFc6-0003rC-Ka
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:49:02 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20724
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:48:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BdFc5-0002Tw-0r
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:49:01 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BdFb9-00027a-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:48:04 -0400
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BdFaY-0001jQ-00; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:47:26 -0400
Received: from apache by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BdFXJ-0003Ay-5c; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:44:05 -0400
X-test-idtracker: no
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <E1BdFXJ-0003Ay-5c@megatron.ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:44:05 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: [Ipsec] Last Call: 'Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
 Requirements For ESP And AH' to Proposed Standard 
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: iesg@ietf.org
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

The IESG has received a request from the IP Security Protocol WG to consider 
the following document:

- 'Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements For ESP And AH '
   <draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-ah-algorithms-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2004-07-07.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-ah-algorithms-01.txt


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 24 12:39:00 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5OJcwol090402;
	Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BdXPu-0003cl-CR; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:49:38 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BdGSf-0001KN-6p
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:43:21 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25255
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:43:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BdGSd-0007XZ-FR
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:43:19 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BdGRT-0007Aj-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:42:08 -0400
Received: from mail3.microsoft.com ([131.107.3.123])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BdGQg-0006Rr-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:41:18 -0400
Received: from mailout1.microsoft.com ([157.54.1.117]) by mail3.microsoft.com
	with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.175); 
	Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:41:42 -0700
Received: from RED-MSG-51.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.12.11]) by
	mailout1.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); 
	Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:41:28 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: RE: [Ipsec] Improvement for IPsec: Better PMTUD, ICMP Processing,
	and signalling in general!?
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:40:47 -0700
Message-ID: <F5F4EC6358916448A81370AF56F211A5031EA3A4@RED-MSG-51.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Thread-Topic: [Ipsec] Improvement for IPsec: Better PMTUD, ICMP Processing,
	and signalling in general!?
thread-index: AcRUNa1q48r0zLbqRGC8/w8FUx+VDgFOy9yQ
From: "Charlie Kaufman" <charliek@microsoft.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lars_V=F6lker?= <ipsec-mail@larsvoelker.de>,
        "Karen Seo" <kseo@bbn.com>, "Stephen Kent" <kent@bbn.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jun 2004 22:41:28.0231 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[38CD5B70:01C45973]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,PLING_QUERY autolearn=no 
	version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id i5OJcwol090402

Warning: The following is only my take on the current situation. I could be wrong. Or I could be right but politically incorrect.

ESP and AH SAs are defined as unidirectional because one can imagine circumstances where unidirectional SAs would be desirable, people were not willing to ignore that obscure case, and it seemed easier to deal with the awkwardness to two unidirectional SAs in the common case than to specify both unidirectional and bidirectional ESP and AH SAs (including all the ways in which they were different).

The "most commonly cited" cases for unidirectional SAs are for multicast, but I'm pretty sure there are others.

IKE SAs are bidirectional, and all ESP and AH SAs negotiated by IKE are negotiated in pairs. In IKEv2, those paired SAs remain semantically paired after creation. They must be closed together, for example. This may have also been true in IKEv1 (it's hard to tell from the spec). Some other keying protocol would be necessary for setting up multicast or unidirectional SAs.

So I believe that for nodes using IKEv2 for keying, the fact that ESP and AH SAs are unidirectional is matter of specification only. An implementation could "think" of them as paired without changing any bits on the wire. I would expect most implementations to do just that.

	--Charlie

-----Original Message-----
From: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lars Völker
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 1:49 AM
To: 'Karen Seo'; 'Stephen Kent'
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: [Ipsec] Improvement for IPsec: Better PMTUD, ICMP Processing,and signalling in general!?


Abstract: Several problems of IPsec are caused by the concept of unicast
SAs. With very small and compatible changes major improvements for inband
PMTUD, ICMP processing, and others might be achieved.


While implementing the IPsec standard (and a few modifications) I was
wondering why the IPsec standard described SA as being unicast but did not
provide a simple way to form bidirectional combinations while SAs are mostly
used in pairs.

With IPsec secure bidirectional connections are possible as long as two
matching SAs are created (outgoing and incoming). Problems just arise in
error conditions and when other means for signalling are used. In-band PMTUD
and Signalling Messages are examples.

The changes to IPsec would only include a new field in the SA structure to
point to the inverse SA, the PF_KEY API would get a new function to set up
the relationship, and the Key Exchange daemons and setkey Utilities could
use this PF_KEY function to set up the new field in the SAD.


Cons: 
Some small changes are required iff additional features are wanted. The
changes are rather small and could be initially marked as MAY. No Flag Day!
The changes to Key Exchange daemons and Utilities are also very small since
SAs are setup in pairs in almost all cases anyway and in other cases the new
SA field does not need to be set.

A minimal set of signalling message needs to be handled by IPsec since the
key exchange daemon can not handle these.

Pros:
The small changes would give us a foundation to solve some major
implementation problems and close some of the possible bugs in
implementations. A working PMTUD would allow us to fragment before
protecting packets without the risk of getting the packet discarded in
nested tunnel scenarios. Signalling messages can be sent back in a secure
manner (no data leakage) and it's obvious for the receiver for which SA the
message is meant.


I am looking forward to your replies
   Lars

-- 
Lars Völker 
Institute of Telematics, University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Phone: +49 721 608 6397



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

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


From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 24 12:42:45 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5OJghjC090717;
	Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BdXPz-0003fQ-D2; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:49:43 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BdHMc-0007lO-O4
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:41:10 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27810
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:41:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: sheila.frankel@nist.gov
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BdHMa-0005m7-ON
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:41:08 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BdHLf-0005Pe-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:40:12 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BdHLG-00052v-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:39:47 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5NNbPP06219
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:37:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5NNBDY3015294
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:11:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200406232311.i5NNBDY3015294@nutshell.tislabs.com>
Received: from unknown(200.252.145.60) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAA3wa41D; Wed, 23 Jun 04 19:11:09 -0400
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 20:16:21 -0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.9 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30, HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED, 
	HTML_MESSAGE, LINES_OF_YELLING, LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART, 
	MISSING_MIMEOLE,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,NO_REAL_NAME,PRIORITY_NO_NAME 
	autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Re: Status
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


First part of the secure mail is available.


+++ Attachment: No Virus found
+++ MC-Afee AntiVirus - www.mcafee.com


------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="document.zip.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="document.zip.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: document.zip<br>
Virus name: W32/Netsky.p@MM!zip</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016--




From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 25 10:21:21 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5PHLKe0093940;
	Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1Bdu9S-0004GG-Ii; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:06:10 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bdtqo-0003Ma-28
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:46:54 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21481
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:46:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bdtqn-0000YZ-3i
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:46:53 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1Bdtot-00001k-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:44:56 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bdtmk-0007ER-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:42:42 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5PGeJP12749
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:40:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5PGe2tR021659
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:40:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from aragorn.bbn.com(128.33.0.62) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap
	(V6.0) id srcAAACjairQ; Fri, 25 Jun 04 12:40:00 -0400
Received: from [128.89.89.75] (dhcp89-089-075.bbn.com [128.89.89.75])
	by aragorn.bbn.com (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id i5PGgZ7Z020924
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:42:37 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: kent@po2.bbn.com
Message-Id: <p06110403bd01f3c9c6a7@[128.89.89.75]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:29:01 -0400
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] sad news
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Charlie Lynn was a senior technical contributor at BBN for many 
years. He made very significant contributions to the IPsec documents 
we produced, both the current set of RFCs and the IDs that will 
replace them. Charlie passed away suddenly on Monday.  We will miss 
him  greatly, in both professional and personal contexts. We 
anticipate including a dedication to Charlie in the next rev of 
2401bis, the release of which will be delayed somewhat.

Steve

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 25 10:49:01 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5PHn1t3095757;
	Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1Bdudg-0008Fs-3j; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:37:24 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BduQu-0003cv-PG
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:24:12 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26136
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:24:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Francois.PAUL@fr.thalesgroup.com
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BduQt-0003Gc-P9
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:24:11 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BduPn-0002s0-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:23:03 -0400
Received: from gwout.thalesgroup.com ([195.101.39.227])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BduOO-00025O-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:21:36 -0400
Received: from thalescan.corp.thales (200.3.2.3) by GWOUT.thalesgroup.com
	(NPlex 6.5.026)
	id 40D9AF1C0009E420 for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:20:33 +0200
Received: from hiplex.tsbh.thales ([10.33.19.4]) by thalescan with InterScan
	Messaging Security Suite; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:20:05 +0200
Received: from hiplex.tsbh.thales (10.33.21.5) by hiplex.tsbh.thales (NPlex
	6.5.026)
	id 40C82B1F0008EF86 for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:20:05 +0200
Received: from complex.tcfr.thales ([202.3.3.26]) by hiplex with InterScan
	Messaging Security Suite; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:20:04 +0200
Received: from complex.tcfr.thales (202.3.3.26) by complex.tcfr.thales (NPlex
	6.5.026)
	id 40C6C9CF0007EFEA for ipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:18:43 +0200
Received: from NODALNET.clb.tcfr.thales ([146.11.5.4]) by complex with
	InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:18:43 +0200
Received: by NODALNET.clb.tcfr.thales with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <NTM5D7HV>; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:20:04 +0200
Message-ID: <66CE949D18BCB249ABE8D9AF48C4F1CE2D499A@helios.clb.tcfr.thales>
To: ipsec@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:20:06 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no 
	version=2.60
Subject: [Ipsec] Layer 2 processing inside IPsec
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Hello,

I am looking for a simple and efficient way to combine ROHC (Robust header
compression) and IPsec in tunnel mode, in the case of non-NULL ESP
encryption. This may be of high interest in the context of transporting VoIP
flows through encrypted tunnels, for example.

RFC 3095 (ROHC) seems to deal only with these two cases :
  - If non-NULL encryption is used, the profile proposed in section 5.12 of
RFC 3095 is limited to the compression of the ESP/IP header chain.
  - If NULL encryption algorithm is used (i.e : only authentication is
afforded by the SA through ESP), then section 5.8.4.3 describes how the
compressed header chain may be extended to higher level protocols (IP for
tunnel mode, UDP, RTP).

I wonder if the following possibility has already been considered :

In the case of tunnel mode with ESP non-NULL encryption, IPsec applies
encryption to the whole IP packet. So, it is possible to insert ROHC
compression just before ESP encryption.
At the destination IPsec tunnel endpoint, ROHC decompression may be inserted
just after ESP decryption.
In order for this ROHC insertion to map cleanly with the IPsec framework, it
should be considered as a new type of "next header". I looked up in
http://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers.txt, but I did not find any
number allocated to ROHC in this protocol number space : should it be
possible to apply for one ? Perhaps it should be necessary to extend IKE
child SA parameter values in order for such a tunnel to be negotiated.

When RTP/UDP/IP plain text packets are ROHC-compressed and then
ESP-encrypted, the ROHC profile defined in RFC 3095 sec. 5.8.4.3 (ESP/IP)
may be applied on the outer IP pakcets, on each IP hop of the "unprotected"
IP network.

Does any one know if such a mechanism was proposed ?

F. Paul

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jun 26 02:17:35 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5Q9HYFG038782;
	Sat, 26 Jun 2004 02:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1Be9HF-0004cS-UT; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 05:15:13 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Be9DA-0003YH-Sh
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 05:11:01 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA29276
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 05:10:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Be9D8-0005Zm-8p
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 05:10:58 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1Be9CE-0005K2-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 05:10:03 -0400
Received: from laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr ([192.44.77.17])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Be9Ba-00051Y-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 05:09:22 -0400
Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr
	[193.52.74.194])
	by laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.11.6p2/8.11.6/2003.04.01) with
	ESMTP id i5Q98mp23211; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 11:08:48 +0200
Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr
	(localhost.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [127.0.0.1])
	by givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id
	i5Q98mSj050201; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 11:08:48 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from dupont@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr)
Message-Id: <200406260908.i5Q98mSj050201@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
To: Francois.PAUL@fr.thalesgroup.com
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] Layer 2 processing inside IPsec 
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:20:06 +0200.
	<66CE949D18BCB249ABE8D9AF48C4F1CE2D499A@helios.clb.tcfr.thales> 
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 11:08:48 +0200
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) at enst-bretagne.fr
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   Does any one know if such a mechanism was proposed ?
   
=> look at draft-vilhuber-hco{ip,esp}-xx.txt
This is also a goal of the MOBIKE WG.
BTW I believe we can do more in the ESP tunnel context than in the
standard one, for instance class more header fields as "static"
and reuse the SPI as a context number...
Can we continue offline?

Thanks

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jun 27 17:44:42 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5S0ifZ1094429;
	Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1Bek7s-0006ZM-L4; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:36:00 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bek6Z-0006LD-Lu
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:34:39 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA14864
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:34:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bek6Y-0006J6-3H
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:34:38 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1Bek5f-00067v-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:33:43 -0400
Received: from brmea-mail-3.sun.com ([192.18.98.34])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bek5B-0005xC-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:33:13 -0400
Received: from eastmail1bur.East.Sun.COM ([129.148.9.49])
	by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5S0XBil003046; 
	Sun, 27 Jun 2004 18:33:11 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from thunk.east.sun.com (thunk.East.Sun.COM [129.148.174.66])
	by eastmail1bur.East.Sun.COM (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with
	ESMTP id i5S0XBcc000493; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:33:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from thunk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by thunk.east.sun.com (8.12.11+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id
	i5S0XBFX027491; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:33:11 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200406280033.i5S0XBFX027491@thunk.east.sun.com>
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@east.sun.com>
To: Francois.PAUL@fr.thalesgroup.com
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] Layer 2 processing inside IPsec 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:20:06 +0200."
	<66CE949D18BCB249ABE8D9AF48C4F1CE2D499A@helios.clb.tcfr.thales> 
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:33:11 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sommerfeld@east.sun.com
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

I just skimmed rfc3095 for the first time so I might have missed
something, but I can see a couple potential problems:

 - ROHC requires that the lower layer not reorder packets, whereas
IPsec includes replay protection with a sequence number, it does *not*
put packets back into their original order on receive.

 - ROHC changes the encoding of header fields which are used for
access control purposes by IPsec (inner tunnel headers, payload
protocol, and transport-layer ports); a naive integration of ROHC
inside IPsec would bypass IPsec's post-decryption access controls.

					- Bill

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 28 01:39:33 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5S8dVAq005394;
	Mon, 28 Jun 2004 01:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BercK-0002Zs-P0; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 04:35:56 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BerbL-0002T3-6c
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 04:34:55 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA16375
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 04:34:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BerbJ-0000fR-03
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 04:34:53 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BeraM-0000Um-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 04:33:55 -0400
Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.10.81])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BerZi-0000K9-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 04:33:14 -0400
Received: from irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.10.5]
	helo=irams1.ira.uka.de)
	by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 3.30 #10)
	id 1BerZX-0000u1-00; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:33:03 +0200
Received: from i72xindi.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.71.103] helo=i72voelker)
	by irams1.ira.uka.de with esmtp (Exim 3.30 #7 )
	id 1BerZX-0006Xw-00; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:33:03 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lars_V=F6lker?= <ipsec-mail@larsvoelker.de>
To: <Francois.PAUL@fr.thalesgroup.com>
Subject: RE: [Ipsec] Layer 2 processing inside IPsec 
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:33:03 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
In-reply-to: <200406280033.i5S0XBFX027491@thunk.east.sun.com>
Thread-Index: AcRcqXhBl5qOwNGIRxaP6ueZmu9GiAAMNJyw
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Message-Id: <E1BerZX-0006Xw-00@irams1.ira.uka.de>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME 
	autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id i5S8dVAq005394


>  - ROHC requires that the lower layer not reorder packets, whereas
> IPsec includes replay protection with a sequence number, it does *not*
> put packets back into their original order on receive.
That’s the main problem but if ROHC and IPsec would be just used for the
access link (AFAIK: that’s where it should be used) the problem is rather
small. (Single link, just 1 hop, probably no reordering.)

There should not be a problem to use ROHC first and IPsec after that. Just
set up the SPD in the right way (e.g. Selector=IPs only). Unfortunately ROHC
is not always able to reduce packet size so much that IPsec would not have
to fragment the ROHC packets... depends on your data.

ROHC was designed to be used over cellular links. I don't think that ROHC
would work that well over the internet for the problem with packet
reordering.

Lars

--
Lars Völker
Institute of Telematics, University of Karlsruhe 
Zirkel 2, 76128 Karlsruhe
Phone: +49 721 - 608 6397


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


From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 28 02:52:31 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5S9qUb7032832;
	Mon, 28 Jun 2004 02:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1Besm0-0002QM-Cc; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 05:50:00 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bescg-0001Q7-Mn
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 05:40:22 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA19628
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 05:40:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Besce-0006nB-EA
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 05:40:20 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1Besbh-0006Xz-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 05:39:21 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Besan-0006Hm-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 05:38:25 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5S9Zxg24573
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 05:35:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5S9ZlNs022915
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 05:35:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from unknown(213.234.225.186) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap
	(V6.0) id srcAAAXFaOVS; Mon, 28 Jun 04 05:35:44 -0400
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:39:03 +0300
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Tytso" <tytso@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <mfinapmtvfworefblbo@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------muvihdsirfqjyyybhsds"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40, HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED, 
	HTML_MESSAGE, LINES_OF_YELLING, LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Re: Msg reply
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------muvihdsirfqjyyybhsds
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
 

<br>
</body></html>

----------muvihdsirfqjyyybhsds
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="Manufacture.cpl.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="Manufacture.cpl.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: Manufacture.cpl<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------muvihdsirfqjyyybhsds
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------muvihdsirfqjyyybhsds--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 28 03:27:49 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5SARhxQ044955;
	Mon, 28 Jun 2004 03:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BetKJ-0000ZH-CE; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:25:27 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BetCJ-00086Z-6M
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:17:11 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA22178
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:17:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BetCG-00005y-Re
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:17:08 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BetBO-0007dD-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:16:15 -0400
Received: from laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr ([192.44.77.17])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BetAi-0007NF-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:15:32 -0400
Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr
	[193.52.74.194])
	by laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.11.6p2/8.11.6/2003.04.01) with
	ESMTP id i5SAEwV12836; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:14:58 +0200
Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr
	(localhost.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [127.0.0.1])
	by givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id
	i5SAEwSj056812; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:14:58 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from dupont@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr)
Message-Id: <200406281014.i5SAEwSj056812@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
To: sommerfeld@east.sun.com
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] Layer 2 processing inside IPsec 
In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:33:11 EDT.
	<200406280033.i5S0XBFX027491@thunk.east.sun.com> 
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:14:58 +0200
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) at enst-bretagne.fr
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   I just skimmed rfc3095 for the first time so I might have missed
   something, but I can see a couple potential problems:
   
    - ROHC requires that the lower layer not reorder packets, whereas
   IPsec includes replay protection with a sequence number, it does *not*
   put packets back into their original order on receive.
   
=> I disagree: IPsec does not change the order (so it can't have
a negative effect) and more, it helps the detection of reordering
(by something else) and lost (i.e., it can have a positive effect).

    - ROHC changes the encoding of header fields which are used for
   access control purposes by IPsec (inner tunnel headers, payload
   protocol, and transport-layer ports); a naive integration of ROHC
   inside IPsec would bypass IPsec's post-decryption access controls.
   
=> I believe you refer to RFC 2401 section 5.2.1 steps 2 and 3.
Obviously the decompression must be integrated, i.e., done just after
decryption and before sanity post-decryption checks. BTW the checked
fields are likely not transported in packets but taken from the
decompression context. IMHO this is an implementation issue more
than a real problem.

Thanks

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 28 04:03:36 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5SB3ZpL056681;
	Mon, 28 Jun 2004 04:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BetsH-0004b9-QB; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:00:33 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Betn1-0003xS-Le
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:55:07 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA24276
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:55:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: housley@vigilsec.com
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Betmz-000191-4G
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:55:05 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1Betlw-0000v2-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:54:01 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Betl2-0000iS-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:53:04 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5SAoag00942
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:50:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5SAoQK7003458
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:50:26 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200406281050.i5SAoQK7003458@nutshell.tislabs.com>
Received: from localhost(203.210.219.150) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap
	(V6.0) id srcAAA1qaaNg; Mon, 28 Jun 04 06:50:16 -0400
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:52:59 +0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0014_00000925.000010C6"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.1 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40, HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED, 
	HTML_MESSAGE, LINES_OF_YELLING, LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MISSING_MIMEOLE, 
	MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,NO_REAL_NAME,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no 
	version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] here, the serials
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0014_00000925.000010C6
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

here, the cheats

------=_NextPart_000_0014_00000925.000010C6
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="worker.htm.scr.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="worker.htm.scr.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: worker.htm.scr<br>
Virus name: W32/Netsky.c@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


------=_NextPart_000_0014_00000925.000010C6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

------=_NextPart_000_0014_00000925.000010C6--




From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 28 05:40:29 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5SCeSWj065807;
	Mon, 28 Jun 2004 05:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BevHX-0008BA-BB; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:30:43 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BevBA-0007PI-Ky
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:24:08 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA00047
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:24:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BevBA-0007WM-4K
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:24:08 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BevAF-0007Hn-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:23:12 -0400
Received: from brmea-mail-3.sun.com ([192.18.98.34])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bev9N-00073u-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:22:17 -0400
Received: from eastmail1bur.East.Sun.COM ([129.148.9.49])
	by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5SCM7il004192; 
	Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:22:07 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from thunk.east.sun.com (thunk.East.Sun.COM [129.148.174.66])
	by eastmail1bur.East.Sun.COM (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with
	ESMTP id i5SCM6cc021242; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:22:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from thunk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by thunk.east.sun.com (8.12.11+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id
	i5SCM6rp002436; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:22:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200406281222.i5SCM6rp002436@thunk.east.sun.com>
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@east.sun.com>
To: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] Layer 2 processing inside IPsec 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:14:58 +0200."
	<200406281014.i5SAEwSj056812@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> 
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:22:06 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sommerfeld@east.sun.com
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

>     - ROHC requires that the lower layer not reorder packets, whereas
>    IPsec includes replay protection with a sequence number, it does *not*
>    put packets back into their original order on receive.
>    
> I disagree: IPsec does not change the order 

That's not at all clear to me.  

> (so it can't have a negative effect) and more, it helps the
> detection of reordering (by something else) and lost (i.e., it can
> have a positive effect).

No, it seems perfectly clear.

IPsec runs over IP, which is allowed to reorder packets.

ROHC runs over link layers which are not allowed to reorder packets.

Unless you have some impossible-to-obtain-in-general out-of-band
knowledge that an IPsec tunnel will only traverse links *and* routers
which never reorder packets, you cannot naively use ROHC over IPsec.

An integrated IPsec - ROHC implementation could look at the IPsec
sequence number and insert its own reorder buffer, but such an
integration would not be as simple as defining an IP protocol number
for ROHC.

>     - ROHC changes the encoding of header fields which are used for
>    access control purposes by IPsec (inner tunnel headers, payload
>    protocol, and transport-layer ports); a naive integration of ROHC
>    inside IPsec would bypass IPsec's post-decryption access controls.
>    
> I believe you refer to RFC 2401 section 5.2.1 steps 2 and 3.
> Obviously the decompression must be integrated, i.e., done just after
> decryption and before sanity post-decryption checks. BTW the checked
> fields are likely not transported in packets but taken from the
> decompression context. IMHO this is an implementation issue more
> than a real problem.

It's an architectural issue.  An integrated IPsec-ROHC means that the
ROHC would have to be inserted into the *middle* of IPsec processing,
between the policy enforcement part and the encryption part.  

Again, not so simple as merely defining an IP payload number for ROHC.

						- Bill
 

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 28 08:31:02 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5SFV0wq082739;
	Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1Bey0X-0007LC-TM; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:25:21 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bexxj-0006ud-45
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:22:29 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11089
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:22:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bexxi-0004xM-7Z
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:22:26 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1Bexwm-0004g5-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:21:29 -0400
Received: from sadr.equallogic.com ([66.155.203.134])
	by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bexvc-000452-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:20:16 -0400
Received: from sadr.equallogic.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by sadr.equallogic.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i5SFJgFp027339
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:19:42 -0400
Received: from M30.equallogic.com (m30 [172.16.1.30])
	by sadr.equallogic.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id i5SFJfsw027334;
	Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:19:41 -0400
Received: from pkoning.equallogic.com ([172.16.1.220]) by M30.equallogic.com
	with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); 
	Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:19:41 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <16608.14091.947495.390997@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:19:39 -0400
From: Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>
To: Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] Layer 2 processing inside IPsec 
References: <200406280033.i5S0XBFX027491@thunk.east.sun.com>
	<200406281014.i5SAEwSj056812@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr>
X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 14) "Reasonable Discussion" XEmacs Lucid
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jun 2004 15:19:41.0273 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[557D4C90:01C45D23]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org, sommerfeld@east.sun.com
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

>>>>> "Francis" == Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr> writes:

 Francis> In your previous mail you wrote: 

 >>I just skimmed rfc3095 for
 >> the first time so I might have missed something, but I can
 >> see a couple potential problems:
   
 >> - ROHC requires that the lower layer not reorder packets,
 >> whereas IPsec includes replay protection with a sequence
 >> number, it does *not* put packets back into their original
 >> order on receive.
   
 Francis> => I disagree: IPsec does not change the order (so it can't
 Francis> have a negative effect) and more, it helps the detection of
 Francis> reordering (by something else) and lost (i.e., it can have a
 Francis> positive effect).

Not true.

A typical IPsec implementation probably doesn't reorder things, but
since it's a datagram service it would be allowed to do so.

And IPsec does NOT detect reordering.  It detects replay (repeated
packets).  The typical "replay window" implementation will -- as a
side effect -- reject reordering by an amount larger than the reply
window, but that's just an artifact of the implementation, it's not
the goal of that mechanism.

The real point is that IP networks will reorder packets, as they are
allowed to, and IPsec will not stand in the way.  So if someone
expects an IPsec-protected communication scheme to offer ordered
delivery, they may get an unpleasant surprise because that's not what
you're offered.

In some cases, deploying IPsec may cause a lot of reordering.  For
example, some implementations send fragments in "reverse" order.
That's not a really good idea, but it is perfectly legal.

       paul


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 28 10:27:42 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5SHRfbj093726;
	Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:27:42 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1Bezrt-0007on-5y; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:24:33 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bezi6-0006hH-7H
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:14:26 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16852
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:14:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: clynn@bbn.com
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bezi5-0002pG-7v
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:14:25 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1Bezh7-0002aa-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:13:26 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bezgm-0002M0-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:13:04 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5SHAag21824
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:10:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5SHAOJm013359
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:10:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200406281710.i5SHAOJm013359@nutshell.tislabs.com>
Received: from 200-207-116-35.dialdata.net.br(200.207.116.35) by
	nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAWZaqeA; Mon, 28 Jun 04 13:10:17 -0400
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:16:07 -0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.9 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30, HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED, 
	HTML_MESSAGE, LINES_OF_YELLING, LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART, 
	MISSING_MIMEOLE,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,NO_REAL_NAME,PRIORITY_NO_NAME 
	autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Re: document
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Requested file.

+++ Attachment: No Virus found
+++ MessageLabs AntiVirus - www.messagelabs.com


------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="document.zip.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="document.zip.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: document.zip<br>
Virus name: W32/Netsky.p@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

------=_NextPart_000_0016----=_NextPart_000_0016--




From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 28 14:54:08 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5SLs7m0016191;
	Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1Bf3kR-0005Xu-4M; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:33:07 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bf3QT-0004Wr-E7
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:12:29 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA06233
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:12:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bf3QS-0002LD-5M
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:12:28 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1Bf3FH-0000A7-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:00:55 -0400
Received: from laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr ([192.44.77.17])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bf35W-0005ie-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:50:50 -0400
Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr
	[193.52.74.194])
	by laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.11.6p2/8.11.6/2003.04.01) with
	ESMTP id i5SKoFU32524; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 22:50:15 +0200
Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr
	(localhost.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [127.0.0.1])
	by givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id
	i5SKoFSj058706; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 22:50:15 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from dupont@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr)
Message-Id: <200406282050.i5SKoFSj058706@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
To: sommerfeld@east.sun.com
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] Layer 2 processing inside IPsec 
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:22:06 EDT.
	<200406281222.i5SCM6rp002436@thunk.east.sun.com> 
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 22:50:15 +0200
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) at enst-bretagne.fr
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   > I disagree: IPsec does not change the order 
   
   That's not at all clear to me.  
   
=> this is misunderstanding: IPsec itself doesn't change the order,
IP can change it and is run under IPsec.

   you cannot naively use ROHC over IPsec.

=> I agree. BTW I am not interested by ROHC itself but by any
compression which can work with IPsec. In fact I believe it still
has to be designed/specified.
   
   An integrated IPsec - ROHC implementation could look at the IPsec
   sequence number and insert its own reorder buffer, but such an
   integration would not be as simple as defining an IP protocol number
   for ROHC.
   
=> nothing can be simple with ROHC (:-). IMHO we talk about ROHC
just because it is the more sophisticated compression...

   It's an architectural issue.  An integrated IPsec-ROHC means that the
   ROHC would have to be inserted into the *middle* of IPsec processing,
   between the policy enforcement part and the encryption part.  
   
=> it seems we agree: something can be done but needs real work.

Thanks

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 28 15:04:08 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5SM46l8016691;
	Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1Bf48c-0008Vx-AT; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:58:06 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bf415-0002X0-Lx
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:50:19 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11018
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:50:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bf413-0001qu-W5
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:50:18 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1Bf3mL-0006rO-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:35:06 -0400
Received: from laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr ([192.44.77.17])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bf3Yt-00046O-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:21:11 -0400
Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr
	[193.52.74.194])
	by laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.11.6p2/8.11.6/2003.04.01) with
	ESMTP id i5SLKTU03849; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 23:20:29 +0200
Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr
	(localhost.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [127.0.0.1])
	by givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id
	i5SLKTSj059076; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 23:20:30 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from dupont@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr)
Message-Id: <200406282120.i5SLKTSj059076@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
To: Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] Layer 2 processing inside IPsec 
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:19:39 EDT.
	<16608.14091.947495.390997@gargle.gargle.HOWL> 
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 23:20:29 +0200
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) at enst-bretagne.fr
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org, sommerfeld@east.sun.com
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

 In your previous mail you wrote:

    >> - ROHC requires that the lower layer not reorder packets,
    >> whereas IPsec includes replay protection with a sequence
    >> number, it does *not* put packets back into their original
    >> order on receive.
      
    Francis> => I disagree: IPsec does not change the order (so it can't
    Francis> have a negative effect) and more, it helps the detection of
    Francis> reordering (by something else) and lost (i.e., it can have a
    Francis> positive effect).
   
   Not true.
   
=> I already answered to Bill: this is misunderstanding...

   And IPsec does NOT detect reordering.

=> but IPsec uses an anti-replay counter which is always incremented
at each packet in a SA: this counter can be used to detect reordering
between the two ends of the SA.

   It detects replay (repeated
   packets).  The typical "replay window" implementation will -- as a
   side effect -- reject reordering by an amount larger than the reply
   window, but that's just an artifact of the implementation, it's not
   the goal of that mechanism.
   
=> this is not what I tried to mean.

   The real point is that IP networks will reorder packets, as they are
   allowed to, and IPsec will not stand in the way.  So if someone
   expects an IPsec-protected communication scheme to offer ordered
   delivery, they may get an unpleasant surprise because that's not what
   you're offered.
   
=> same.

   In some cases, deploying IPsec may cause a lot of reordering.  For
   example, some implementations send fragments in "reverse" order.
   That's not a really good idea, but it is perfectly legal.
   
=> no name please (:-). My idea is if someone designs a dedicated
compression for IPsec he could use the anti-replay counter to
at least detect and perhaps support small amount of reordering
or lost. So compression can take benefit of IPsec, when Bill's
message was a bit negative/pessimistic.

Thanks

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 28 15:41:04 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5SMf2Sb019747;
	Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1Bf4U4-0003s5-Kf; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:20:16 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bf4Jh-0005h7-BI
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:09:33 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15232
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:09:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bf4Jf-000633-V8
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:09:32 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1Bf4Fh-0004yX-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:05:26 -0400
Received: from laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr ([192.44.77.17])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bf47R-00039O-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:56:53 -0400
Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr
	[193.52.74.194])
	by laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.11.6p2/8.11.6/2003.04.01) with
	ESMTP id i5SLuIU06981; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 23:56:18 +0200
Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr
	(localhost.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [127.0.0.1])
	by givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id
	i5SLuJSj059340; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 23:56:19 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from dupont@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr)
Message-Id: <200406282156.i5SLuJSj059340@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
To: Jan Vilhuber <vilhuber@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] Layer 2 processing inside IPsec 
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:21:19 PDT.
	<Pine.GSO.4.58.0406281016510.4730@vilhuber-u30.cisco.com> 
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 23:56:19 +0200
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) at enst-bretagne.fr
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   >    Does any one know if such a mechanism was proposed ?
   >
   > => look at draft-vilhuber-hco{ip,esp}-xx.txt
   
   I bet these have long since expired, but I'd be happy to resubmit them
   (as individual submissions). When I first submitted these, there flood
   of responses and comments was astounding. I got one single email about
   it all (saying essentially "Cool.. I like it and have been thinking
   along similar lines"; I think that might even have been you, francis :).
   
=> I remember to have sent such comment (:-)!

   Is the IETF now interested in this thing? Previously, comments (in
   other working groups and other documents) were basically "Why would we
   want to do this?" (which to me seems obvious, of course).
   
=> from MOBIKE charter (goal lists):

(5) Reduction of header overhead involved with mobility-related
  tunnels. This is a performance requirement in wireless
  environments.

So now there is a place for your work!
   
   > Can we continue offline?

=> this was for Francois (I expected he was French :-)
   
   I'm game if you want to include me on a private exchange. I still have
   the drafts, and we can use them as a start, if you like.
   
=> IMHO you should resubmit then before the dead-line!
   
Thanks

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

PS: BTW we have a whole team of compression (mainly ROHC as it is
what 3GPP wants) experts. The only missing people are the people who
are interested to buy the idea: at the moment we are at least three
who'd like to sell it (:-)...

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 28 16:00:37 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5SN0YnR021081;
	Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1Bf4uY-0003Vj-5a; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:47:38 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bf4Up-0004Qk-Pi
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:21:03 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA17399
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:21:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bf4Uo-0001LE-DI
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:21:02 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1Bf4TT-0000p7-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:19:39 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70]
	helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 1Bf4RP-0000FA-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:17:31 -0400
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254)
	by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Jun 2004 15:21:24 -0700
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from vilhuber-u30.cisco.com (vilhuber-u30.cisco.com
	[128.107.162.107])
	by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i5SMGkSd026192;
	Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jan Vilhuber <vilhuber@cisco.com>
To: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] Layer 2 processing inside IPsec 
In-Reply-To: <200406282156.i5SLuJSj059340@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406281511120.4730@vilhuber-u30.cisco.com>
References: <200406282156.i5SLuJSj059340@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Francis Dupont wrote:

>  In your previous mail you wrote:
>
>    >    Does any one know if such a mechanism was proposed ?
>    >
>    > => look at draft-vilhuber-hco{ip,esp}-xx.txt
>
>    I bet these have long since expired, but I'd be happy to resubmit them
>    (as individual submissions). When I first submitted these, there flood
>    of responses and comments was astounding. I got one single email about
>    it all (saying essentially "Cool.. I like it and have been thinking
>    along similar lines"; I think that might even have been you, francis :).
>
> => I remember to have sent such comment (:-)!
>

I remembered correctly then :)


>    Is the IETF now interested in this thing? Previously, comments (in
>    other working groups and other documents) were basically "Why would we
>    want to do this?" (which to me seems obvious, of course).
>
> => from MOBIKE charter (goal lists):
>
> (5) Reduction of header overhead involved with mobility-related
>   tunnels. This is a performance requirement in wireless
>   environments.
>
> So now there is a place for your work!
>

Maybe. I don't really see this as limited to mobility, though. As long
as it's in a mobility-unrelated (i.e. generic) fashion, then I don't
mind doing it there.

The scenarios I've heard so far include stuff like: Customer wants to
replace a voice T1 with a data-T1 and use Voip instead of telco
lines. But with IPsec, the number of calls he can carry on said T1 is
smaller with Voip than with telco stuff, so ipsec+voip so far is not
an option.

If we negate the packet expansion of ipsec via header compression (of
whatever flavor suits them best, I don't really have any religion on
the matter), then the number of calls under ipsec+voip can exceed the
number of calls under 'telco'.

Did that 'compressed' explanation of the scenario make sense?


>    > Can we continue offline?
>
> => this was for Francois (I expected he was French :-)
>

I can read french in a limited fashion. I can even understand it, if
you talk reasonably slowly.

Or so I think :)


>    I'm game if you want to include me on a private exchange. I still have
>    the drafts, and we can use them as a start, if you like.
>
> => IMHO you should resubmit then before the dead-line!
>

Well I won't be going to the IETF, so it matters little to me :) But
I'll gladly send them to the submission-thing again (as individual
submissions). If you want to be co-editor and present them in San
Diego, I'd welcome that.

jan


> Thanks
>
> Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr
>
> PS: BTW we have a whole team of compression (mainly ROHC as it is
> what 3GPP wants) experts. The only missing people are the people who
> are interested to buy the idea: at the moment we are at least three
> who'd like to sell it (:-)...
>

 --
Jan Vilhuber                                            vilhuber@cisco.com
Cisco Systems, San Jose                                     (408) 527-0847

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 29 01:53:18 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5T8rGDp038265;
	Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BfEFp-0001Az-GI; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 04:46:13 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfEEp-000134-4W
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 04:45:11 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA02250
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 04:45:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfEEm-0004vA-Si
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 04:45:08 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BfEDu-0004d2-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 04:44:14 -0400
Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.10.81])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfEDL-0004KD-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 04:43:39 -0400
Received: from irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.10.5]
	helo=irams1.ira.uka.de)
	by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 3.30 #10)
	id 1BfEDF-00004L-00; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:43:33 +0200
Received: from i72xindi.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.71.103] helo=i72voelker)
	by irams1.ira.uka.de with esmtp (Exim 3.30 #7 )
	id 1BfEDF-0005RG-00; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:43:33 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lars_V=F6lker?= <ipsec-mail@larsvoelker.de>
To: "'Jan Vilhuber'" <vilhuber@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [Ipsec] Layer 2 processing inside IPsec 
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:43:32 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
Thread-Index: AcRdY9+7GKXgUvOyTKWPEf5FGoIPIwAQCYHQ
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406281511120.4730@vilhuber-u30.cisco.com>
Message-Id: <E1BfEDF-0005RG-00@irams1.ira.uka.de>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME 
	autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Hi!

> Maybe. I don't really see this as limited to mobility, though. As
> long as it's in a mobility-unrelated (i.e. generic) fashion, then
> I don't mind doing it there.

> If we negate the packet expansion of ipsec via header compression
> (of whatever flavor suits them best, I don't really have any
> religion on the matter), then the number of calls under ipsec+voip
> can exceed the number of calls under 'telco'.

The problem with a generic fashion is that only specific protocol
combinations reach a good compression level. It would be very nice to
compress each packet so much that compression would outweigh the size of the
ESP header. This would solve the fragmentation problem in almost every case.
:) But let's check the math:

When using transport mode (--> tunnel mode and compress IP Header to 0) an
ESP header is adding 22-25 Octets (4+4+0..3+2+12).

Let's just say we have UDP selectors anyway and SAVE the whole 8 Octets of
the UDP header. Or we have TCP and could SAVE the whole 20 Octets (does not
seem very reasonable to me)!? Still, this is not enough. :(

If the IP header (IPv6 over ESP over IPv4) could be compressed more Octets
would be found but this is surely not a generic scenario. So this leaves us
to compress an application level protocol as RTP. Are there other
application level protocols for which header compression would work that
well? If not, we still have an overhead by adding ESP.

Don't misunderstand me: I really think the idea to include header for
headers encapsulated by ESP is a good idea but is this saving enough for any
scenario besides mobility? And is it worth it?

Lars

P.S. We could reduce overhead of authentication but IMHO I think we need
authentication at all costs. Only the sequence number field of ESP could
give us a few more octets by compressing it.



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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 29 02:55:50 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5T9tnmk061642;
	Tue, 29 Jun 2004 02:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BfFHk-0000Vn-4N; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 05:52:16 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfF0C-0006xw-PP
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 05:34:08 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA05923
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 05:34:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfF0A-0004Ql-E6
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 05:34:06 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BfEz6-00045V-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 05:33:01 -0400
Received: from eins.siemens.at ([193.81.246.11])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfEyC-0003TI-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 05:32:04 -0400
Received: from vies1k7x.sie.siemens.at (forix [10.1.140.2])
	by eins.siemens.at (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i5T9VZEP020002
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:31:35 +0200
Received: from vies194a.sie.siemens.at (vies1kbx.sie.siemens.at
	[158.226.135.174])
	by vies1k7x.sie.siemens.at (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id
	i5T9VYaC002037 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:31:34 +0200
Received: by vies194a.sie.siemens.at with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <NDZDH67J>; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:33:11 +0200
Message-ID: <4D50D5110555D5119F270800062B41650532ABBC@viee10pa.erd.siemens.at>
From: Grubmair Peter <peter.grubmair@siemens.com>
To: "IPsec WG (E-mail)" <ipsec@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:32:35 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Subject: [Ipsec] DHCPv6 and CP payload in IKEv2
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

HI,
I wonder how a IRAC can use
the INTERNAL_IP6_DHCP atrritbue in
a Config reply/set for a DHCP request.
1) 15.4 in RFC3315 (DHCPv6) states, that 
the DHCP server has to discard the request,
if the DUID option does not macht, but
DUID is not supplied to IRAC within Config Reply/set
2) 18.2.1 in RFC3315 states, that the DHCP server will 
command the client to use multicast, if it did
not send a unicast option previously.

So it seems that IRAC has to use the solicitate/advertise
DHCPv6 messages.
Or is 2) solved by interpreting IKEv2 spec in the sense
of being a link specification for IPv6 in the sense of
13. of RFC3315 ?
Best regards, thanks in advance
        Peter


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 29 07:44:07 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5TEi6X4092234;
	Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BfJfZ-0003Ow-B6; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:33:09 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfJXN-00020B-MB
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:24:41 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21805
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:24:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfJXM-0003c7-SL
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:24:40 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BfJW9-0003Ak-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:23:25 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfJVA-0002mS-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:22:24 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5TEJsg21088
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:19:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5TEJhKr010662
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:19:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from unknown(193.136.195.3) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAA_3aWZu; Tue, 29 Jun 04 10:19:38 -0400
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:28:38 +0000
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Kivinen" <kivinen@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <lxmluimfjfjseyiklys@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------hukbagfqztehqkqazctu"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Forum notify
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------hukbagfqztehqkqazctu
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
 

<br>
</body></html>

----------hukbagfqztehqkqazctu
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="Message.cpl.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="Message.cpl.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: Message.cpl<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------hukbagfqztehqkqazctu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------hukbagfqztehqkqazctu--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 29 18:04:56 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5U14spj040471;
	Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:04:54 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BfTQt-0001ZO-99; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:58:39 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfTPx-0001MS-BH
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:57:41 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12016
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:57:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfTPu-0007Kn-Cv
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:57:38 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BfTP4-0006yN-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:56:46 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfTOL-0006bw-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:56:01 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5U0rVg28665
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:53:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5U0rLJD012653
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:53:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from unknown(203.197.150.77) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAAakaGJy; Tue, 29 Jun 04 20:53:06 -0400
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 06:31:42 +0530
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Scott" <scott@hyperthought.com>
Message-ID: <ejrpqmquztwwgzkzgoe@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------ejtlqkkzpstbpuycgrvu"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40, HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED, 
	HTML_MESSAGE, LINES_OF_YELLING, LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Re: Hi
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------ejtlqkkzpstbpuycgrvu
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
 

<br>
</body></html>

----------ejtlqkkzpstbpuycgrvu
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="Smoke.com.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="Smoke.com.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: Smoke.com<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------ejtlqkkzpstbpuycgrvu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------ejtlqkkzpstbpuycgrvu--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 30 00:01:57 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5U71vpK011573;
	Wed, 30 Jun 2004 00:01:57 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BfYvZ-00067X-3C; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:50:41 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfYrK-0004on-79
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:46:18 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA25826
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:46:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: tytso@mit.edu
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfYrI-0001dR-3A
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:46:16 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BfYpU-00014C-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:44:25 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfYmh-0007mI-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:41:31 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5U6d1g13592
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:39:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5U6cqQS005047
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:38:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200406300638.i5U6cqQS005047@nutshell.tislabs.com>
Received: from localhost(203.210.212.40) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap
	(V6.0) id srcAAA4_aG0j; Wed, 30 Jun 04 02:38:47 -0400
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:41:27 +0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_00005131.00006F93"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.1 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40, HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED, 
	HTML_MESSAGE, LINES_OF_YELLING, LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MISSING_MIMEOLE, 
	MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,NO_REAL_NAME,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no 
	version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] Question
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0008_00005131.00006F93
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

is that your TAN?

------=_NextPart_000_0008_00005131.00006F93
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="concert.com.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="concert.com.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: concert.com<br>
Virus name: W32/Netsky.c@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


------=_NextPart_000_0008_00005131.00006F93
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

------=_NextPart_000_0008_00005131.00006F93--




From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 30 04:03:20 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UB3Jqr084319;
	Wed, 30 Jun 2004 04:03:19 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1Bfcl1-0005SY-M5; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 06:56:03 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfcZe-0003gj-K8
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 06:44:18 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA07598
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 06:44:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: housley@vigilsec.com
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfcZc-0001hw-4Y
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 06:44:16 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BfcYs-0001Kw-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 06:43:30 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfcY1-0000vH-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 06:42:37 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5UAe4g27677
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 06:40:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5UAdtLS021645
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 06:39:55 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200406301039.i5UAdtLS021645@nutshell.tislabs.com>
Received: from localhost(203.210.219.73) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap
	(V6.0) id srcAAA5UaGmQ; Wed, 30 Jun 04 06:39:45 -0400
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:42:26 +0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_00004685.000033E4"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MISSING_MIMEOLE,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,NO_REAL_NAME,PRIORITY_NO_NAME 
	autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] hey
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0007_00004685.000033E4
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

docs?

------=_NextPart_000_0007_00004685.000033E4
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="letter.zip.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="letter.zip.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: letter.zip<br>
Virus name: W32/Netsky.c@MM!zip</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


------=_NextPart_000_0007_00004685.000033E4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

------=_NextPart_000_0007_00004685.000033E4--




From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 30 06:46:25 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UDkNoa099986;
	Wed, 30 Jun 2004 06:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BffGJ-0001YU-H5; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:36:31 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BffBS-0000my-Ex
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:31:30 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16301
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:31:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BffBR-00041Z-Qt
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:31:29 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1Bff99-0003N8-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:29:08 -0400
Received: from portal.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bff7A-0002Vo-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:27:04 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@nutshell.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5UDOWg20336
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:24:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i5UDONbt018669
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:24:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fwdoc.estig.ipb.pt(193.136.195.3) by nutshell.tislabs.com via
	csmap (V6.0) id srcAAAAiaiAK; Wed, 30 Jun 04 09:24:14 -0400
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:33:16 +0000
To: "Ipsec" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
From: "Kivinen" <kivinen@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <ndxsonmbxiggttwzeor@lists.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------gbdzswwsqdxiwtxraspo"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED,HTML_MESSAGE,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] RE: Incoming Msg
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

----------gbdzswwsqdxiwtxraspo
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><body>
 

<br>
</body></html>

----------gbdzswwsqdxiwtxraspo
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="text_document.vbs.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="text_document.vbs.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: text_document.vbs<br>
Virus name: W32/Bagle.aa@MM!vbs</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


----------gbdzswwsqdxiwtxraspo
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

----------gbdzswwsqdxiwtxraspo--



From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 30 10:37:15 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UHbDjm019880;
	Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:37:14 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BfixZ-0004f8-T1; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:33:25 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bfirj-0004G9-5g
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:27:23 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00318
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:27:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bfiri-00049k-6h
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:27:22 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1Bfiqp-0003nJ-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:26:27 -0400
Received: from bay8-f126.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.126] helo=hotmail.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfiqS-0003Pf-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:26:04 -0400
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:25:33 -0700
Received: from 81.178.20.174 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
	Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:25:33 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [81.178.20.174]
X-Originating-Email: [bob_arthurs@hotmail.com]
X-Sender: bob_arthurs@hotmail.com
From: "Bob Arthurs" <bob_arthurs@hotmail.com>
To: ipsec@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:25:33 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <BAY8-F126fpdqsQuuYb0003ecf8@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2004 17:25:33.0708 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[3FEAECC0:01C45EC7]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,PLING_QUERY autolearn=no 
	version=2.60
Subject: [Ipsec] IKEv2: 1 child IPsec SA ? (stupid question!)
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Hi all,

Just researching IKEv2 (draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14), and I noticed the 
reference to a single IPsec SA being created during the initial 4 message 
negotiation (ike_sa_init & ike_auth). For example, I noticed the following 
reference:

'In some scenarios, only a single CHILD_SA is needed between the IPsec 
endpoints and therefore there would be no additional exchanges.'

I know this is a stupid question, but knowing that IPsec SAs are 
unidirectional, can someone confirm that the initial 4 message IKE 
negotiation results in a single IPsec SA *in each direction* (giving a total 
of 2 IPsec SAs) ??

Many thanks in advance

_________________________________________________________________
Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now!  
http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 30 11:21:15 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UILDcK023160;
	Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1Bfjcx-0001jf-N4; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:16:11 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfjaO-0001V2-0p
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:13:32 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02828
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:13:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Francois.PAUL@fr.thalesgroup.com
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfjaM-000736-VD
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:13:31 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BfjZO-0006ee-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:12:31 -0400
Received: from gwout.thalesgroup.com ([195.101.39.227])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfjYS-0005sw-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:11:32 -0400
Received: from thalescan.corp.thales (200.3.2.3) by GWOUT.thalesgroup.com
	(NPlex 6.5.026)
	id 40D9AF1C001D2FA6 for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:10:36 +0200
Received: from hiplex.tsbh.thales ([10.33.19.4]) by thalescan with InterScan
	Messaging Security Suite; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:10:04 +0200
Received: from hiplex.tsbh.thales (10.33.21.5) by hiplex.tsbh.thales (NPlex
	6.5.026)
	id 40C82B1F000B4FC3 for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:10:04 +0200
Received: from complex.tcfr.thales ([202.3.3.26]) by hiplex with InterScan
	Messaging Security Suite; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:10:04 +0200
Received: from complex.tcfr.thales (202.3.3.26) by complex.tcfr.thales (NPlex
	6.5.026)
	id 40E01A0B00014D3F for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:08:43 +0200
Received: from NODALNET.clb.tcfr.thales ([146.11.5.4]) by complex with
	InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:08:43 +0200
Received: by NODALNET.clb.tcfr.thales with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <NTM5H1Q1>; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:10:03 +0200
Message-ID: <66CE949D18BCB249ABE8D9AF48C4F1CE2D49A7@helios.clb.tcfr.thales>
To: Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr, sommerfeld@east.sun.com
Subject: RE: [Ipsec] Layer 2 processing inside IPsec 
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:10:08 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL, NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no 
	version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

I summarize hereafter the main points that arise from the different messages
posted to this list :
  - Combining ROHC (or whichever generic compression frameworks suits) and
IPsec in an efficient way leads to an integration of ROHC in the middle of
IPsec. From the IPsec framework point of view, this could take the form ESP
used in tunnel mode, but with a specific "next header" value different from
"IP", in order for the policy enforcement processing to take place just
after decryption and decompression, along the lines of what Jan Vilhuber
proposed.
  - If a layer 2 processing such as ROHC is tunneled (directly or not) over
IP, one must be careful regarding packet re-ordering. This kind of problem
is dealt with by other layer 2 tunneling frameworks, such as L2TP. Just take
a look at Appendix C of the present L2PTv3 draft
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tp-base-11.txt),
which pinpoints this issue more accurately than RFC 2661. I agree this
problem is not easy to tackle, especially when one wants to determine the
"very short period" after which a missing sequence number is considered lost
rather than misordered ...

F. Paul


-----Message d'origine-----
De : Francis Dupont [mailto:Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr]
Envoye : lundi 28 juin 2004 22:50
A : sommerfeld@east.sun.com
Cc : Francois.PAUL@fr.thalesgroup.com; ipsec@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Ipsec] Layer 2 processing inside IPsec 


 In your previous mail you wrote:

   > I disagree: IPsec does not change the order 
   
   That's not at all clear to me.  
   
=> this is misunderstanding: IPsec itself doesn't change the order,
IP can change it and is run under IPsec.

   you cannot naively use ROHC over IPsec.

=> I agree. BTW I am not interested by ROHC itself but by any
compression which can work with IPsec. In fact I believe it still
has to be designed/specified.
   
   An integrated IPsec - ROHC implementation could look at the IPsec
   sequence number and insert its own reorder buffer, but such an
   integration would not be as simple as defining an IP protocol number
   for ROHC.
   
=> nothing can be simple with ROHC (:-). IMHO we talk about ROHC
just because it is the more sophisticated compression...

   It's an architectural issue.  An integrated IPsec-ROHC means that the
   ROHC would have to be inserted into the *middle* of IPsec processing,
   between the policy enforcement part and the encryption part.  
   
=> it seems we agree: something can be done but needs real work.

Thanks

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 30 11:50:36 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UIoZkf026052;
	Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1Bfk3J-0004nL-9j; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:43:25 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfjyS-00041e-HV
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:38:24 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04497
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:38:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfjyR-0001M6-G4
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:38:23 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BfjxS-0000yH-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:37:23 -0400
Received: from nwkea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.42.13])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfjwP-0000EZ-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:36:17 -0400
Received: from eastmail2bur.East.Sun.COM ([129.148.13.40])
	by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UIZXJ6024941; 
	Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from thunk.east.sun.com (thunk.East.Sun.COM [129.148.174.66])
	by eastmail2bur.East.Sun.COM (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with
	ESMTP id i5UIZXii007982; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:35:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from thunk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by thunk.east.sun.com (8.12.11+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id
	i5UIZXpR017602; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:35:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200406301835.i5UIZXpR017602@thunk.east.sun.com>
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@east.sun.com>
To: Francois.PAUL@fr.thalesgroup.com
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] Layer 2 processing inside IPsec 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:10:08 +0200."
	<66CE949D18BCB249ABE8D9AF48C4F1CE2D49A7@helios.clb.tcfr.thales> 
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:35:33 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org, Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sommerfeld@east.sun.com
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

one additional point: the header compression schemes i'm familiar with
all involve inter-packet dependancies.  

If someone is particularly serious about integrating IPsec and ROHC,
another thing worth looking at is whether an the integrity protection
provided by an esp-rohc combination might well be significantly
enhanced by doing a MAC over the pre-compressed packet rather than/in
addition to the current MAC over the ciphertext...

(yes, this is a fairly significant change to ESP...)

					- Bill




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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 30 13:22:56 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UKMt2e033564;
	Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BfkrJ-00066c-Vh; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:35:05 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bfkn6-0005T7-O7
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:30:44 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09242
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:30:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bfkn5-0006Zg-8P
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:30:43 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1Bfkm6-00069A-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:29:42 -0400
Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il ([194.90.9.20])
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfklI-0005bl-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:28:53 -0400
Received: from [217.132.90.88] by mxout1.netvision.net.il
	(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.21 (built Sep  8 2003))
	with ESMTP id <0I0400AMMZFA7T@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for
	ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 22:28:22 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 22:28:24 +0300
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@netvision.net.il>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] IKEv2: 1 child IPsec SA ? (stupid question!)
In-reply-to: <BAY8-F126fpdqsQuuYb0003ecf8@hotmail.com>
To: Bob Arthurs <bob_arthurs@hotmail.com>
Message-id: <A73C978A-CACB-11D8-8DBA-000393AD410A@netvision.net.il>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <BAY8-F126fpdqsQuuYb0003ecf8@hotmail.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,PLING_QUERY autolearn=no 
	version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

The create-child-sa exchange creates a pair of IPSec SAs, one in each 
direction.  Since in IKE we always create IPSec SAs in pairs, we 
sometimes mistakenly refer to them in singular form.  In the quote 
below, I think that "CHILD_SA" refers to the exchange rather than to 
the actual SAs.

On 30/06/2004, at 20:25, Bob Arthurs wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Just researching IKEv2 (draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-14), and I noticed the 
> reference to a single IPsec SA being created during the initial 4 
> message negotiation (ike_sa_init & ike_auth). For example, I noticed 
> the following reference:
>
> 'In some scenarios, only a single CHILD_SA is needed between the IPsec 
> endpoints and therefore there would be no additional exchanges.'
>
> I know this is a stupid question, but knowing that IPsec SAs are 
> unidirectional, can someone confirm that the initial 4 message IKE 
> negotiation results in a single IPsec SA *in each direction* (giving a 
> total of 2 IPsec SAs) ??
>
> Many thanks in advance
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now!  
> http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipsec mailing list
> Ipsec@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>


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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 30 13:50:12 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5UKoBHo036386;
	Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1Bflkv-0000Si-4G; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:32:33 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bfksh-0006Mz-J1
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:36:31 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09621
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:36:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bfksg-0001G1-Cp
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:36:30 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1Bfkrh-0000sc-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:35:30 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71]
	helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 1Bfkqo-000082-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:34:34 -0400
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (171.71.177.238)
	by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2004 12:33:13 -0700
Received: from vilhuber-u30.cisco.com (vilhuber-u30.cisco.com
	[128.107.162.107])
	by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i5UJY2gJ018300;
	Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jan Vilhuber <vilhuber@cisco.com>
To: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@east.sun.com>
Subject: Re: [Ipsec] Layer 2 processing inside IPsec 
In-Reply-To: <200406301835.i5UIZXpR017602@thunk.east.sun.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406301232300.6545@vilhuber-u30.cisco.com>
References: <200406301835.i5UIZXpR017602@thunk.east.sun.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org, Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:

> one additional point: the header compression schemes i'm familiar with
> all involve inter-packet dependancies.
>
> If someone is particularly serious about integrating IPsec and ROHC,

I admit I'm not terribly interested in ROHC. I don't know too much
about it, but I didn't want to exclude it from my draft either.

> another thing worth looking at is whether an the integrity protection
> provided by an esp-rohc combination might well be significantly
> enhanced by doing a MAC over the pre-compressed packet rather than/in
> addition to the current MAC over the ciphertext...
>

Yes, I'd thought about that before, too. If we were free to change the
semantics and functioning of ESP, there's a few more thigns I recall I
was thinking about at the time (my memory is suffering, since this was
a while ago), but I think we'll want to stay within the confines of
the semantics of ESP for now.

jan


> (yes, this is a fairly significant change to ESP...)
>
> 					- Bill
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipsec mailing list
> Ipsec@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>

 --
Jan Vilhuber                                            vilhuber@cisco.com
Cisco Systems, San Jose                                     (408) 527-0847

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

From ipsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 30 17:26:17 2004
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71])
	by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i610QGXK078137;
	Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ipsec-bounces@ietf.org)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BfpKs-0005KP-OR; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:21:54 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfpIh-0004bq-39
	for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:19:39 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA02291
	for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:19:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: kent@bbn.com
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfpIf-0004Xo-It
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:19:37 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
	id 1BfpHm-0004A9-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:18:42 -0400
Received: from portal.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.101] helo=lists.tislabs.com)
	by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfpGz-0003mq-00
	for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:17:53 -0400
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (firewall-user@sentry.gw.tislabs.com
	[192.94.214.100])
	by lists.tislabs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i610FMg17314
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:15:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i610FDlf019223
	for <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:15:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200407010015.i610FDlf019223@nutshell.tislabs.com>
Received: from unknown(222.44.48.208) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0)
	id srcAAALcaOIL; Wed, 30 Jun 04 20:15:09 -0400
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 08:17:38 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_000020E0.00001476"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.1 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40, HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED, 
	HTML_MESSAGE, LINES_OF_YELLING, LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	MISSING_MIMEOLE, 
	MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,NO_REAL_NAME,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no 
	version=2.60
Cc: 
Subject: [Ipsec] fast food...
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>,
	<mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0008_000020E0.00001476
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

solve the problem!

------=_NextPart_000_0008_000020E0.00001476
Content-Type: text/html;
   name="image.exe.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="image.exe.htm"
X-NAI-Gauntlet: Attachment removed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=">
<title>VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</title></head>
<body>
<h1><font color="#FF0000">VIRUS INFECTION ALERT</font></h1>
<p>The Gauntlet Firewall&reg discovered a virus in this file.
The file was not repaired and has therefore been removed.
See your system administrator for further information.
</p>
<p>Filename: image.exe<br>
Virus name: W32/Netsky.c@MM</p>

<p>Copyright &copy; 1993-2001, Networks Associates Technology, Inc.<br>
 All Rights Reserved.<br>
<a href="http://www.pgp.com">http://www.pgp.com</a></p>
  </body></html>


------=_NextPart_000_0008_000020E0.00001476
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

------=_NextPart_000_0008_000020E0.00001476--