On Mar 14, 2012, at 12:05 AM, Mark Boltz wrote: > 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.
Yes, I like Praveen's suggestion too. > > The goal here is to create a vendor-agnostic standards-based solution, right? > :-) Well, we make the standards, so anything we make will be standards-based, no? I'm also not sure what vendor-agnostic means here. As long as everyone can implement it, it doesn't matter how close it is to some vendor's implementation. What I would not like to see is something that makes requirements that not all vendors can meet, such as the ability to dynamically set up virtual interfaces, which is something not all platforms and operating systems provide. _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
