On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 01:18:01PM +1000, Jon Pamment <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > A separate issue but related AFAIC: I'm not so thrilled with the > direction Mitel/e-smith took recently re ipsec, and I might not be the > only one. We are shipping 5.0 with a FreeS/WAN (ipsec) enabled kernel and all associated tools. Building a network of machines with FreeS/WAN requires significant configuration and we have not included our work in that area in the general distribution. We have built a service around simplified configuration of multiple servers so that they can easily join and leave IPSEC VPNs. This is the ServiceLink VPN service, and we charge for that. We believe that the combination of ServiceLink services provide the features most requested by small businesses, with VPN being one of those. The public release of 5.0 is identical to the 5.0+ServiceLink release except that it does not contain any ServiceLink code. > I feel that as a small business (less than 5 ppl) I'm left out > of the current advances and perhaps not in the Mitel picture of the > future. The asking price is simply way to high. (btw my e-smith server > is paid up!, I'm not a free loader) Our picture of the future is most definitely aimed at businesses such as yours (especially those such as yourself who register and pay for our time). However, I'd like to ask that we keep all pricing/business issues off the devinfo list. We have all sorts of people on the devinfo list, and one problem we have is that some people are using it as a free support service. You may have noticed that we (e-smith) tend not to answer support type questions on devinfo, for this very reason. This is a development list and should be focused on development, not business issues or technical support. > A discussion in the open is almost certainly going to involve the "whys" > and I won't be surprised if some of it relates to the cost of > participation in the new "ServiceLink" to obtain ipsec. I don't believe the cost of our services is a topic for the devinfo list. An ipsec enabled kernel is standard in 5.0 and we provide an optional service to simplify its configuration. > Should I be > correct in my assumption then Mitel may consider an alternative approach > to the current offerings that would allow business such as mine to use > the service or part there of and contribute financially. This is best raised directly with our Authorized Partners as we discuss these issues with them. > Therefore I put it to you that it may be in the best interests of all of > us, end users, developers, Mitel and partners that a discussion such as > this "in the open" could be beneficial to all concerned. I disagree, as this is a development list. As such, its focus should be on development. > I am interested in others opinions but I will not respond to flames ! Gordon -- Gordon Rowell [EMAIL PROTECTED] VP Engineering Network Server Solutions Group http://www.e-smith.com Mitel Networks Corporation http://www.mitel.com -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives by mail and http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
