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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Thu, 06 December 2012 19:16 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 7FDFC21F88B6 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 11:16:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.533
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.066, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 2tu69cr8HMWf for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 11:16:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy12-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy12-pub.bluehost.com [50.87.16.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6DC2721F88A1 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 11:16:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 23812 invoked by uid 0); 6 Dec 2012 19:15:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy12.bluehost.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2012 19:15:52 -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=l92MlZ5nCfkTqTrVR6hIUZmaunvLk3Bqs1sU0wzAVnY=; b=0jGOEa8iffLfucUqq5SZchIWMa1c+GKsgUSu2e7obDJ0ZhpecQ/dvkb7W0r/0gxiUrtTUnZfx3lMC/REO7KQp7Y955gobTbyR4vNBIiu9gdTHs+Iow7QGAvLcoa6oc9R;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:49359 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1TggvI-0000Gy-0i; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:15:52 -0700
Message-ID: <50C0EEE9.7000904@labn.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 14:15:53 -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: <50A5703F.4070305@labn.net> <CAOyVPHTWhv8=sP6kYkZmOEsjMsdr72P8fe=7w5XY0Hd_wP_9=w@mail.gmail.com> <50A58CDB.30402@labn.net> <CAOyVPHQ+n83DaVv6Q9Z0kvi0MyYrhPbB=L6ju4fwjTyRK1P22Q@mail.gmail.com> <50A682F8.9080907@labn.net> <CAOyVPHSvWhgaYm2s_8_37VuaR1e_5tiJai+04AKzm3HXkNwESg@mail.gmail.com> <50A689A9.1090803@labn.net> <CAOyVPHR1euA9TRnAp7V+OKjRkPARYYvQ+C0HnA70y-122sy9ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <50A68D30.2040203@labn.net> <CAOyVPHR4OVNuvMU-UxZAJUoKFugCWwUQq0dSRo-7gY=Y886LoQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOyVPHRopwvE5U3ZF7kDxNe59OgTk7ydoFG6iqvZdOFUCvaGyA@mail.gmail.com> <50BE30D9.4030903@labn.net> <CAOyVPHSXQQt_31Y2MP+iMe8d0MCxSyKzVvCLL-HLkcggaOKuMw@mail.gmail.com> <50BE4A60.1000303@labn.net> <CAOyVPHSkGVvGD2bMgk-vp3DO0o9N9Zt6mf4SnaL4L9ZFR8NRHg@mail.gmail.com> <50BFA4C0.1060909@labn.net> <CAOyVPHQu+NyQvxMjHJ0=0YtrH6rerU-etEmqQKTKP4jt4sHZgw@mail.gmail.com> <50BFCA9A.4030502@labn.net> <CAOyVPHQyVz0jCAFGdqLpCxE2tm5TBCkEXKLPBxigQasw=wNW9Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOyVPHQyVz0jCAFGdqLpCxE2tm5TBCkEXKLPBxigQasw=wNW9Q@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: IPsecme WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Some comments / questions on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ad-vpn-problem
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, 06 Dec 2012 19:16:15 -0000

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
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>