[Idr] Using BGP signaling to achieve IPsec Tunnel configuration

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Tue, 02 April 2019 08:37 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 10:37:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMG9zM0iXNja00vOxgs_yirf_spABRJT++Cxwio+y15F8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000025f5240585880b0b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1uyP_FEEVyOm1YZFHWthtHsWjtk>
Subject: [Idr] Using BGP signaling to achieve IPsec Tunnel configuration
Precedence: list

/* resending to IDR due to bounce */

Hi Frank,

This draft does not talk about distributing any security related
parameters. Maybe the name is a bit confusing as for some it means to be
IPSec related.

We have discussed the draft in Prague and agreed to also extend it with
other types of secure encap.

I have not discussed it with other authors but perhaps a much proper name
and clearly less controversial would be:
*draft-hujun-idr-encrypted-transport-autodiscovery* or
*draft-hujun-idr-eta* (for
short) or something along those lines to reflect what this work is really
about and how it differs from other proposals.

Thx,
R.

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 3:52 AM Xialiang (Frank, Network Standard & Patent
Dept) <frank.xialiang@huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi Jun,
>
> My personal view is no matter which use cases (SDN-based or BGP-based) you
> are for, the basic goal is to configure/distribute the IPSec parameters
> between the associated peers, for next step IKEv2 session negotiation. That
> is why all these related drafts should be aligned in certain way.
>
>
>
> B.R.
>
> Frank
>

[Idr] Using BGP signaling to achieve IPsec Tunnel… Robert Raszuk