Re: [IPsec] Some comments / questions on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ad-vpn-problem

[Vishwas Manral <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lou,

Here is the latest draft, with all your comments incorporated.

I will post the draft soon.

Thanks,
Vishwas


On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Lou Berger <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Vishwas,
>
> I think I see where you're headed.
>
> The text under discussion is:
>
>    Routing using the tunnels SHOULD work
>    seamlessly without any updates to the higher level application
>    configuration i.e.  OSPF configuration, when the tunnel parameter
>    changes.
>
> I read this a requirement being placed on the higher level protocol, but
> I believe your intent was on the solution.  How about rephrasing along
> the lines of a requirement on the ADVPN solution? Perhaps something like:
>
>    The ADVPN solution SHOULD NOT increase the amount of information
>    required to configure protocols running over IPsec tunnels.
>
> Lou
>
> On 12/6/2012 1:55 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote:
> > Hi Lou,
> >
> > I have included the other comments. The last one remaining is:
> >
> >     > VM> I think this is an important requirement. A tunnel should be
> >     able to
> >     > provide an interface by which when tunnel IP parameters change we
> >     do not
> >     > have to change any configuration for higher application like
> >     Routing. I
> >     > had earlier mentioned in more generic terms earlier but changed to
> the
> >     > terms provided based on feedback from the list.
> >
> >     What higher level protocols like most routing protocols that use the
> >     tunnel interface IP addresses in operation?
> >
> >     >
> >     > The entire idea is the with scale configuration needs to be
> >     reduced and
> >     > that needs to happen across layers, so every layer needs to
> >     provide the
> >     > service. Let me know what it is I am unable to convey.
> >
> >     sure, but I think you're placing new requirements on the routing &
> >     tunneling protocols.
> >
> > VM> There are no restrictions on an application protocol like Routing.
> > The idea is that the lower needs to provide a functionality, so that if
> > required a higher layer can use it. There is no restriction at all on
> > the higher layer. Do let me know if that is clearer?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Vishwas
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IPsec mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
> >
>