Yes, that is fine. Although one could argue that the 1st Use case is P2P in its nature; as only some signaling would need to traverse an actual VPN tunnel and the connection between the 2 clients would be P2P.Should we add a standard Gaps section, where we don't necessarily list the requirements but start building a list of gaps that will help clarify the problem statement:It seems that we at least have a partial list already, like:- Dynamic discovery/configuration- Optimal path for high performance.- Ability to select the closest entry point. ThanksJC> From: [email protected] > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 17:51:51 -0500 > Subject: Re: [IPsec] P2P VPN draft UNCLASSIFIED > > Upon reflection, I can see how "Point to Point VPNs" is problematic > as a description of the problem. Really it's more about dynamically > creating SAs so that any endpoint or gateway can communicate directly > with any other, as permitted by policy. And how can we do this in a > manageable manner in a large-scale environment where endpoints are > mobile and configurations and policies change often? > > So "Dynamic Mesh VPNs" is fine with me. Whatever the WG feels is best. > > Thanks, > > Steve > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > > Of Ulliott, Chris > > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 4:53 PM > > To: '[email protected]' > > Subject: Re: [IPsec] P2P VPN draft UNCLASSIFIED > > > > Classification:UNCLASSIFIED > > > > How about "dynamic mesh VPNs" as a title as I think the dynamic part is > > key here and probably an important aspect of the use cases. > > > > Chris > > > > [This message has been sent by a mobile device] > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Yaron Sheffer [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 09:17 PM > > To: IPsecme WG <[email protected]> > > Subject: [IPsec] P2P VPN draft > > > > Hi Steve, > > > > a few initial comments. > > > > * The draft is short and clear. Thanks for that! > > * I have a problem with the title (and even more, with the "file > > name" > > of the draft). P2P is usually perceived as peer-to-peer, which > > skews > > the discussion towards one particular use case, that of > > endpoint-to-endpoint. I suggest to use "Mesh IPsec VPN" instead. > > * I am unclear about 2.2: so what if you "suddenly need to exchange a > > lot of data". How is it different from normal IP traffic load > > management? The text is simply too vague here. Ideally, should we > > expect the traffic to migrate to other gateways? To go directly > > between endpoints? To establish priorities on existing gateways? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Yaron > > > > _______________________________________________ > > IPsec mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec > > > > *********************************************************************** > > ***** > > Communications with GCHQ may be monitored and/or recorded > > for system efficiency and other lawful purposes. Any views or > > opinions expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect GCHQ > > policy. This email, and any attachments, is intended for the > > attention of the addressee(s) only. Its unauthorised use, > > disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the > > intended recipient, please notify [email protected]. > > > > This information is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of > > Information Act 2000 and may be subject to exemption under > > other UK information legislation. Refer disclosure requests to > > GCHQ on 01242 221491 ext 30306 (non-secure) or email > > [email protected] > > > > *********************************************************************** > > ***** > > > > > > The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government > > Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless > > Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number > > 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. > > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored > > and/or recorded for legal purposes. > > _______________________________________________ > > IPsec mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
