| Main Archive Page > Month Archives > ipsec archives |
Re: [IPsec] Feedback on the interim session's format
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman_at_nospam>Date: Fri Feb 06 2009 - 01:39:59 GMT
To: "Grewal, Ken" <ken.grewal@intel.com>, Paul Koning <Paul_Koning@dell.com>, "ynir@checkpoint.com" <ynir@checkpoint.com>
At 9:43 AM -0700 2/5/09, Grewal, Ken wrote:
>If there are alternatives that would allow operation over 'well known' ports such as 80, then those would be preferable.
Not necessarily. There are likely to be folks who have firewalls that inspect what goes on port 80 and, seeing non-HTTP gibberish, will block the connection.
For a future meeting, we have the option of going to a dial-in number, but that will be quite expensive for people outside the US, as well as for many people inside the US. We do not know how to make the tradeoff between that and the port-blocked issue.
Please feel free to continue this thread with discussion of how onerous it would be to make an occasional two-hour call to a local number in the US.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec