Re: [IPsec] Feedback on the interim session's format

["Grewal, Ken" <ken.grewal at intel.com>]

I had the same problem with our corporate firewall and had to take the call from home and then cut off early to allow for travel time back to office before the next meeting. 

If there are alternatives that would allow operation over 'well known' ports such as 80, then those would be preferable.

Thanks, 
- Ken
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ipsec-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>Paul Koning
>Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 8:22 AM
>To: ynir at checkpoint.com
>Cc: ipsec at ietf.org; kivinen at iki.fi
>Subject: Re: [IPsec] Feedback on the interim session's format
>
>>>>>> "Yoav" == Yoav Nir <ynir at checkpoint.com> writes:
>
> >> > Did you encounter any major technical problems (e.g. one
> >> person's > corporate firewall prevented him from joining)?
> >>
> >> Our corporate firewall did block teamspeak ports, but as I knew
> >> about this beforehand, I was able to get the firewall rules
> >> changed so that the teamspeak could be used.
>
> Yoav> Not everyone has that kind of clout.
>
>Agreed.  A good assumption is "if it's not port 80 it is blocked and
>that block is not subject to debate or negotiation".
>
>That way you will accommodate participants from companies where the
>security procedures are either too strict or too slow to "get the
>firewall rules changed".
>
>	 paul
>
>_______________________________________________
>IPsec mailing list
>IPsec at ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec