I like Juniper's suggestion of "auto mesh VPNs", although other options may be available. I think that dynamic is a good word, but I'd rather anything that can distill to an acronym that would be too ambiguous with DMVPN. Or any other term currently used for proprietary vendor alternatives.
The goal here is to create a vendor-agnostic standards-based solution, right? :-) -- Mark Boltz, CISSP, CISA, NSA-IEM, CSGI Director, Federal and Mid-Atlantic cell: 571.246.2233 office: 202.434.8963 toll free: 866.869.4075 e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> fax: 202.318.2333 e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <http://www.stonesoft.com/> <http://www.stonesoft.com/><http://www.stonesoft.com/>[cid:E73E5D0D-0F71-4DDB-9B79-12A5B649A69E@no-dns-available.example.com]<http://www.stonesoft.com/> <http://www.stonesoft.com/> Stonesoft Inc.<http://www.stonesoft.com/us/> 1200 G St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005-6705 [cid:4E195463-5011-4073-B6E5-59680BC2EA89@no-dns-available.example.com]<http://twitter.com/#!/Stonesoft_US><http://twitter.com/#!/Stonesoft_US><http://twitter.com/#!/Stonesoft_US>[cid:199A7F02-3023-454D-8AD3-AB64E3629E73@no-dns-available.example.com]<http://www.linkedin.com/company/7438><http://www.linkedin.com/company/7438><http://www.linkedin.com/company/7438>[cid:AEFEAA7C-B5B8-40B3-86FC-AF0E1C490A3C@no-dns-available.example.com]<http://www.youtube.com/user/stonesoftcorp>[cid:B0EE3400-0301-4D91-B8D0-D076C9D7FFE7@no-dns-available.example.com]<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stonesoft/45937171955><http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stonesoft/45937171955><http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stonesoft/45937171955> Stonesoft: Network Security. Simplified.<http://www.stonesoft.com/> On Mar 13, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Hu, Jun (Jun) wrote: How about Dynamic Secure VPN(DSVPN) or Dynamic Secure Mesh VPN(DSMVPN)? -----Original Message----- From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hanna Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 5:22 PM To: Mike Sullenberger Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [IPsec] P2P VPN draft UNCLASSIFIED Of course, you're right. The acronym DMVPN makes this a very bad choice. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll throw out a few ideas here: Dynamic Direct VPN (DDVPN) Shortcut VPN (SVPN) Dynamic Scalable VPN (DSVPN) Dynamic Efficient VPN (DEVPN) Other ideas or comments on these are most welcome. Thanks, Steve -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sullenberger [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 6:57 PM To: Stephen Hanna Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [IPsec] P2P VPN draft UNCLASSIFIED Steve, I do not think changing the name to "Dynamic Mesh VPN" is a good idea. The first thing that is going to happen is that it is going to be shortened to "DMVPN" and then we have conflict with Cisco DMVPN, which would be confusing and also "DMVPN" is a registered trademark. It would be best to use some other synonym for "Dynamic Mesh". Mike. 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]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ulliott, Chris Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 4:53 PM To: '[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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 +------------------------------------------------+ | Mike Sullenberger; DSE | | [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> .:|:.:|:. | | Customer Advocacy CISCO | +------------------------------------------------+ _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
<<inline: StoneSoft_transparent.gif>>
<<inline: micro_twitter.jpg>>
<<inline: micro_linkedin.jpg>>
<<inline: micro_youtube.jpg>>
<<inline: micro_facebook.jpg>>
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
