Subject: RE: l2TP with dynamic routing.

From: "Ahmed, Hany" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 13:08:56 -0800

But IPSEC is not a good protocol when it comes to 
tunneling, you have even a harder problem when
you negotiate IPSEC.

When you agree on a certain parameters and subnets 
during negotiation you'll have to stick with that
for the rest of the tunnel, if you happen to learn
another subnet and you want to reach it then you have
to negotiate another SA to support this new traffic.

So IPSEC by itself is not good enough, IP in IP 
is simple but you cannot do much with it since
it has no such things as authentication/authorization
or dynamic address  assignment.

Regards,

Hany A. Ahmed
Software Engineer
Intel of Canada, Ltd.
2 Eva road , suite 220 
Toronto, ON
416-622-8930 
[email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rajesh Kumar [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 2:14 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: l2TP with dynamic routing. 
> 
> 
> IMHO - to run routing protocols over a tunnel, an IpSec
> (or an Ip-in-Ip tunnel if security is not a need) tunnel would
> be a better choice than L2tp because of the lesser
> overhead. Probably also less complex?
> 
> Rajesh
>