RE: [LinkSec] linksec roadmap
Although I think VLANs are part of a traffic segregation part of the
security discussion, I continue to believe making the VLAN ID the same as
the SDE header is best conssigned to political history. Not all attempts to
leverage work that people have already done, and are proud of, point in the
best direction.
Mick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-linksec@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-linksec@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Russ
> Housley
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 8:26 AM
> To: stds-802-linksec@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [LinkSec] linksec roadmap
>
>
>
> A bit of history.
>
> When the VLAN standard began, several people advocated the use of SDE
> (802.10b) as the protocol. Cisco wan the most vocal
> proponent. There were
> a whole bunch of people that were concerned that the
> encryption overhead
> would be too great. The initial response to this was to specify the
> Identity encryption function. In this case, the key identifier would
> provide the VLAN identifier.
>
> After a few months, the wind direction changed, and the VLAN
> proposal that
> we all know was adopted.
>
> The recently posted roadmap essentially proposes a return to
> the original
> proposal.
>
> Russ
>
>
> At 09:44 AM 12/9/2002 -0800, Dennis Volpano wrote:
>
> >Dolors asked me to prepare some slides on scope,
> organization and security
> >reqts for discussion during tomorrow's call. They are
> attached. Useful
> >comments are welcome and any feedback before the call is
> also appreciated.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Dennis
> >
>
>