Couple of clarification here. Juniper implementation of AC-VPN does not do GRE over IPSec. It is IPSec alone for implementation (Route based VPN). Yes, AC-VPN uses NHRP to do resolution just like DM-VPN. But in AC-VPN there are proprietary messages. It uses standard messages, but has many proprietary payloads. We believe NHRP is *necessary* but not *sufficient*. Also the way Hub download PAD/SPD to spokes (so that they can talk to each other directly) is not standard.
We believe, there is a requirement for standard so that we can interop with other vendors. -- Praveen On 11/15/11 7:26 AM, "Yoav Nir" <[email protected]> wrote: On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:52 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > >>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Boltz <[email protected]> writes: > Mark> With all due respect to Cisco, the larger problem we're trying > Mark> to address, is in part the fact that DMVPN and ACVPN are > Mark> vendor specific implementations. And the goal of the > Mark> implementation we're seeking is *large scale* P2P VPNs. > > Assume that they are available on a wide variety of platforms, what is > broken in the technology? I don't know, but I've been told that ACVPN and DMVPN both rely on NHRP and GRE tunnels. I have also heard (and please someone correct me if I'm wrong) that they don't interoperate. So the tools are apparently not enough. > Mark> Picture a hypothetical where a larger interest desires an > Mark> IPsec VPN, in, say the airline industry. We're talking about > Mark> several thousand aircraft from several manufacturers. All in > > We've been through all of this 15 years ago with AIAG's ANX. You really want to tout that experience as a success story? _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
