Subject: RE: can vpn's extended to mobility

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 13:17:54 -0500

>>Others might have a very different definition of VPN. The "P" in "VPN" 
>>stands for "privacy", which

>I thought the word was "private" rather than "privacy". "Private" has two 
>different meanings, one for shutting out others from seeing, but the other 
>referring to restricted management, as in being under private control.

That is correct.  A "Virtual Private Network" is a network that utilizes a
public medium, but is privately managed.  Encapsulation is what makes a VPN
private, not encryption.  I think that encryption is a tremendously
important component of an Internet-based VPN, and I wouldn't use a VPN over
the Internet without encryption.  Nevertheless, the term VPN does NOT
necessitate encryption.

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 19:56:10 +0100 (BST)

On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 [email-masked] wrote:

> private, not encryption.

Beg to differ. Encapsulation makes the VPN virtual.
Encryption ensures that the VPN is private.

All networks are privately managed, whether virtual or not; referring
to that explicitly seems a bit pointless to me...

L.

and there are no truly public mediums.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:58:39 -0400

For a number of years I have joking referred to VPNs without 
encryption as "virtually private networks" as opposed to "virtual 
private networks," to emphasize the difference. But, I agree, the 
historical use of the acronym VPN did not imply crypto security, just 
"private" management.

Steve

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 14:19:43 -0700

>to that explicitly seems a bit pointless to me...

while your explanation is entirely logical and reasonable, it does not 
match the actual history of the term.

the term vpn has always been independent use of encryption.

although ISPs, and their cohorts, are legally private, the thing referred 
to as "The Internet" is considered to be a public network.  (not in the ITU 
or legal sense, but in terms of broad, open access.)

historically there was -- and pretty much still is -- a distinction between 
public (open) and private networks.  When the network runs on top of 
another network, rather than using its own wires, it is called 
virtual.  hence the composed term "virtual private".

again, encryption is an important function, but it has always been an added 
feature to vpn's, rather than an inherent component.

d/

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:04:24 +0100 (BST)

> the term vpn has always been independent use of encryption.

Usage of language does change and meaning does evolve. (has anyone set
up a VPN sans encryption recently?)

> or legal sense, but in terms of broad, open access.)

... which makes it a commons just waiting to be a tragedy, then, cf
U.S. 'public television'. (I've always liked 'consensual
hallucination'.)

> public (open) and private networks.

Under that distinction, is, say, AOL or your other favourite ISP a
public or a private network?

I could be convinced that an AS that allows traffic between other ASs
to transit its network is being public-spirited - but really it's
often just enlightened self-interest (or good business, which is a
subset of same) on the part of the AS in the interactions between the
peers that are ASs. It doesn't make the AS a public network.

L.

all the world's a market, and all the people merely irrational
economic actors.

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 18:38:25 -0400

> up a VPN sans encryption recently?)

Well, does it count if the encryption doesn't cover the whole path?

I'm aware of a number of ipsec "vpn" hardware vendors out there who
are looking to put encryption in ISP edge "concentrator" boxes rather
than at the customer site, for some reason which completely escapes me
-- the traffic ends up in the clear on the last hop to the customer!

					- Bill

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 15:41:57 -0700

At 2:19 PM -0700 9/26/00, Dave Crocker wrote:
>while your explanation is entirely logical and reasonable, it does 
>not match the actual history of the term.

The "actual history" is not what is important here; what the "actual 
customers" expect is important. We are seeing more an more ISPs 
offering VPNs, some using IPsec, some not.

>the term vpn has always been independent use of encryption.

That was true up to about three years ago, but it shifted when IPsec 
became widely deployed. VPN-as-frame-relay pretty much fell out of 
the public mind. Now some ISPs are trying to resurrect the old 
"private management" definition because it is much cheaper for them 
than to offer actual privacy.

>historically there was -- and pretty much still is -- a distinction 
>between public (open) and private networks.  When the network runs 
>on top of another network, rather than using its own wires, it is 
>called virtual.  hence the composed term "virtual private".

This sounds a whole lot closer to Steve Kent's "virtually private". 
It makes sense in the old "we own the wires" world, but not in 
today's "we care about someone seeing our data" world.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium