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

[Vishwas Manral <[e-mail]>]

Here finally!!! Sorry about the duplicate mails.

-Vishwas

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Vishwas Manral <[e-mail]>wrote:

> Sorry. Here it is with the right file.
>
> -Vishwas
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Vishwas Manral <[e-mail]>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>