From owner-freebsd-security Thu Apr 24 11:58:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA24104 for security-outgoing; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 11:58:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pinky.junction.net (pinky.junction.net [199.166.227.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA24087; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 11:57:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sidhe.memra.com (sidhe.memra.com [199.166.227.105]) by pinky.junction.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA06549; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 11:57:44 -0700 Received: from localhost (michael@localhost) by sidhe.memra.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA03970; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 11:52:58 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 11:52:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Dillon To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG cc: security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Commercial vs built in firewall capabilities of FreeBSD In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970424130621.00b82320@sentex.net> Message-ID: Organization: Memra Software Inc. - Internet consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-security@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, Mike Tancsa wrote: > One thing I have found somewhat suprising in this research project is the > reaction to Microsoft's PPTP RFC, or to be more precise, the lack of > reaction to it. I did a search through Dejanews (for those of you who > havent tried it, check out http://www.dejanews.com), and found absolutely > no mention of in in the FreeBSD mailing lists, or in the newsgroups, and > hardly any mention of it even in comp.unix*... Is it because its a > Microsoft initiative ? It's a proprietary Microsoft protocol and there is an IETF WG working on combining PPTP and Cisco's L2F into a unified L2TP. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com