IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Thu, 13 December 2012 22:00 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 223B821F8A32 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:00:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.518
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.453, 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 NJhiYuxJOKrJ for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:00:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.55.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6F4D321F8A15 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:00:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 7185 invoked by uid 0); 13 Dec 2012 22:00:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy7.bluehost.com with SMTP; 13 Dec 2012 22:00:16 -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=/R0+tr5XLbJJNFYDTcPEagTeaNWoNJnmtzuN6QDpDIw=; b=TXeHDY/vPs9JtJ+jRQ5BTIhvyO5PKhjIZLXXFXW5VYKnqmqwAdPXgBZajeBj6r319GmmEGCPO2C7XecZ3yrryKgnj6JnfM4U0L/CJ6gVuHxTIQtP/1T/SoS+UqzAVQPr;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:53022 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1TjGpE-0001IL-LA; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:00:16 -0700
Message-ID: <50CA4FF0.9030405@labn.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:00:16 -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>
In-Reply-To: <CAOyVPHRk49O0eX3KzCGB6usDW=aQhpe3=cPsQfSQM=sZQOE4Rg@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: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 22:00:39 -0000

Vishwas / Brian,
	See below

On 12/13/2012 12:54 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
> Thanks a lot for your comments and sorry I did not reply immediately. I
> have still been waiting for the version 2 to upload. I have sent it to
> the internet-drafts@ietf.org <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org> address.
> 
> My comments are inline and will be updated in version 03. We could do it
> in version 02 too if it does not get posted soon enough. The only issue
> I have is with the L3VPN comment and would want Lou Berger's opinion on
> it, as he thought the text would add value there (though if you see
> previous comments I am more of the opinion similar to yours).
> 
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Brian Weis <bew@cisco.com
> <mailto:bew@cisco.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Steve & Vishwas,
> 
>     Here are a couple of comments on the proposed -02 sent a few days ago.
> 
...
>     Requirement 14 says "The ADVPN solution MUST support Provider Edge
>     (PE) based VPN's". This requirement seems unfair to the end point
>     use cases in 2.1 and 2.3, or even gateway-to-gateway ADVPN solutions
>     that have nothing to do with L3VPNs! 

Agreed, but the requirement is on the solution, not on a particular
implementation.

> I think you're trying to say it
>     must be possible to build an ADVPN solution that meets the
>     requirements of L3VPN, which I have no problem 

Yes, this was my basic point.

> with but I don't
>     think think this it's a fair requirement to put in Section 4.

I agree, it's not fair to have this as a specific implementation
requirement, but I think it's fair that this case must be supported by
the overall solution -- which is simply the previous point.

> Is
>     there anything beyond the new text you added in 2.2 regarding L3VPN
>     that needs to be said?
> 
> VM> No I did not add any extra text for L3VPN besides this one. The idea
> was that if IPsec over GRE as PE to PE communication tunnels the ADVPN
> technology should not preclude such a solution.Like I have said earlier
> I do not have strong opinion regarding this requirement. Lou thought
> this should be there and I asked the list if there were objections to
> this, and I did not hear anyone object, so I added it.
>  
> Lets try to hear from Lou on this.
> 
> ...

I think I've covered it above.

Much thanks,
Lou

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email