Hi Stephen, Sounds good to me.
Thanks, Vishwas On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Stephen Hanna <[email protected]> wrote: > Third issue. > > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: ipsecme issue tracker [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 6:57 PM > To: [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: [ipsecme] #212: Section 2.2 should be more detailed. > > #212: Section 2.2 should be more detailed. > > Suggested Resolution: Expand use case using text supplied by > Vishwas Manral of HP. > > In a simple use case we want hub and spoke topology for say > the DC and the branches. This would also be true of ATM's > connecting to their DC. > > However for scalability reasons we would not want all traffic > to go through the hub. In the ATM example we could want VoIP > session to bypass the DC and have a direct connectivity between > themselves. There are multiple other uses cases for the same. > These new sessions however are temporary, when compared to > permanent branch to hub connections. > > -- > -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- > Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-ipsecme-p2p-vpn- > yaronf.ietf@… | problem@… > Type: defect | Status: new > Priority: normal | Milestone: > Component: p2p-vpn- | Severity: - > problem | Keywords: > Resolution: | > -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- > > Ticket URL: < > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ipsecme/trac/ticket/212#comment:1> > ipsecme <http://tools.ietf.org/ipsecme/> > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec >
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
