Re: IP Protocol 50
From: Jim (me_at_mail.com)
Date: 12/30/03
- Next message: \: "Re: IP Protocol 50"
- Previous message: Neil Hindry: "Disappearing rules - please help!!"
- In reply to: Joseph V. Morris: "Re: IP Protocol 50"
- Next in thread: \: "Re: IP Protocol 50"
- Reply: \: "Re: IP Protocol 50"
- Reply: \: "Re: IP Protocol 50"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:18:01 -0500
That is why you need more than one source for information. I would
delete that link and find a new, more accurate port list.
Port 50 is not tied to IPv6 regarding IPSEC negotiation.
Jim
Joseph V. Morris Wasted my time by saying: on 12/29/2003 12:40 PM:
> Sam,
>
> You might want to benchmark http://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers
> , just in case this continues to happen.
>
> Well, well, well . . . . IPv6 protocols . . . . hmmm
>
> Are you running the IPv6 extensions on a Win XP box?
>
> "Sam" <sam.sam@samsam.com> wrote in message
> news:bsot7l$deti7$1@ID-45606.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>>Hi, I've had a number of incoming "IP Protocol 50" packets which Kerio
>>has blocked after the first alert to me. These all come from the same
>>IP address. Can anyone tell me what this is likely to be? Should I be
>>worried? Although, of course, Kerio _has_ blocked them.
>
>
>
- Next message: \: "Re: IP Protocol 50"
- Previous message: Neil Hindry: "Disappearing rules - please help!!"
- In reply to: Joseph V. Morris: "Re: IP Protocol 50"
- Next in thread: \: "Re: IP Protocol 50"
- Reply: \: "Re: IP Protocol 50"
- Reply: \: "Re: IP Protocol 50"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]