From owner-freebsd-chat  Tue Dec 14 12:30:26 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 608)
	id E1BBC14CC3; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 12:30:24 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb@hub.freebsd.org>
To: tlambert@primenet.com
Cc: ragnar@sysabend.org, brett@lariat.org, dscheidt@enteract.com,
	tlambert@primenet.com, noslenj@swbell.net, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: <199912141935.MAA21198@usr02.primenet.com> (message from Terry
	Lambert on Tue, 14 Dec 1999 19:35:35 +0000 (GMT))
Subject: Re: dual 400 -> dual 600 worth it?
Message-Id: <19991214203024.E1BBC14CC3@hub.freebsd.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 12:30:24 -0800 (PST)
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org


> 
> Now if only IKE/ISAKMP weren't based on clipper chip technology...
> 
> 
> 					Terry Lambert
> 					terry@lambert.org


	????    certain chip vendors chips may be based upon or
include clipper chip (do you know of any?).

	IKE/ISAKMP is not based upon clipper.  the leaf fields, the
key escrow and all the rest of it are not part of IKE/ISAKMP.  this
statemtne is based upon reading the RFC's, IPSec by naganamd doraswamy
and dan harkins.  surely you are not suggesting that KAME has
implemented a software version of clipper chip technology in their
code.

jmb


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message