IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] Comments on proposed draft-ietf-ipsecme-ad-vpn-problem-02

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Sun, 16 December 2012 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F8DC21F885E for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:12:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.385, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LG+V3XOmEnQd for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:12:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy5-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy5-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.38.55]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E56821F8856 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:12:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 1269 invoked by uid 0); 16 Dec 2012 17:11:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by cpoproxy2.bluehost.com with SMTP; 16 Dec 2012 17:11:44 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=9++gv1uPDjPHNgQRZ4Dn/1WyoZTW+l2/ihQpQQERdFk=; b=oa0/HE9urOIrARfyGfc1L/lniGMWvG32qCIKW5OXRfyNYwE+cY7OgrwF/dBUDvCO95ClP3ZmKGjWmwEdVIjxEM8LOWcd0N2Of01rhYPWtNwi4NuLzHcXIACBfMxswZZS;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:58189 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1TkHkd-0002JX-NL; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 10:11:43 -0700
Message-ID: <50CE00C6.30005@labn.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 12:11:34 -0500
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <0B592A71-6BE1-4988-8BA7-2F3CD61AD03A@cisco.com> <CAOyVPHRk49O0eX3KzCGB6usDW=aQhpe3=cPsQfSQM=sZQOE4Rg@mail.gmail.com> <154376FC-F5D4-472F-B321-5B2ED0C5CA2C@cisco.com> <50CB6CA4.3020806@labn.net> <9D8C5AA9-B072-445C-813E-FA187ED75BCE@cisco.com> <CAOyVPHTW=zNFzteZmoqOUMBj0rDEyYuXGo80sjgJHjqdx2WUdA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOyVPHTW=zNFzteZmoqOUMBj0rDEyYuXGo80sjgJHjqdx2WUdA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: "vishwas.manral@hp.com" <vishwas.manral@hp.com>, ipsec@ietf.org, Stephen Hanna <shanna@juniper.net>, Brian Weis <bew@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Comments on proposed draft-ietf-ipsecme-ad-vpn-problem-02
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:12:10 -0000

Vishwas,
	This sounds reasonable to me.

Much thanks!

Lou

On 12/14/2012 5:09 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote:
> Hi Brian/ Lou,
> 
> So as a resolution for this, the only change required would be replacing
> the requirement to:
> 
> There is also the case when L3VPNs operate over IPsec Tunnels, for
> example Provider Edge (PE) based VPN's. An ADVPN MUST support L3VPN as
> an application protected by the IPsec Tunnels.
> 
> I can do that now and post the new version of the draft across.
> 
> Thanks,
> Vishwas
> =====================================================
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Brian Weis <bew@cisco.com
> <mailto:bew@cisco.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Lou,
> 
>     On Dec 14, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net
>     <mailto:lberger@labn.net>> wrote:
> 
>     > Brian,
>     >       Opps, should have replied to this message (and not the prior).
>     >
>     > My previous mail basically said the new requirement is placed on the
>     > ADVPN solution, not a particular implementation.  I think it's
>     important
>     > to ensure that the overall solution provides for Requirement 14,
>     and I'm
>     > not sure how this can be done without a requirement.
> 
>     If I understand correctly, these requirements are intending to be
>     relevant to "ADVPN solutions" that don't include network
>     infrastructure. It doesn't make sense to me to make a "ADVPN
>     solution" implemented on PCs and comprised exclusively of PCs
>     subject to this as a general requirement.
> 
>     All other MUST requirements in Section 4 seem to apply equally to
>     all use cases.
> 
>     >
>     > See below for additional specific responses.
> 
>     [snip]
> 
>     >> Lou, would something like the following text in Section 2.2 be a
>     >> satisfactory replacement for Requirement 14?
>     >>
>     >>    There is also the case when L3VPNs operate over IPsec Tunnels,
>     >>    for example Provider Edge (PE) based VPN's. An AD VPN must
>     >>    support L3VPN as an application protected by the IPsec
>     >>    Tunnels.
>     >
>     > it he must was a MUST, sure.
> 
>     I'd happily support a MUST here. There aren't any other MUSTs
>     outside of Section 4, but I don't know why.
> 
>     Thanks,
>     Brian
> 
>     >
>     > Lou
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email