Hi Lou, I have included the other comments. The last one remaining is:
> VM> I think this is an important requirement. A tunnel should be able to > > provide an interface by which when tunnel IP parameters change we do not > > have to change any configuration for higher application like Routing. I > > had earlier mentioned in more generic terms earlier but changed to the > > terms provided based on feedback from the list. > > What higher level protocols like most routing protocols that use the > tunnel interface IP addresses in operation? > > > > > The entire idea is the with scale configuration needs to be reduced and > > that needs to happen across layers, so every layer needs to provide the > > service. Let me know what it is I am unable to convey. > > sure, but I think you're placing new requirements on the routing & > tunneling protocols. > > VM> There are no restrictions on an application protocol like Routing. The idea is that the lower needs to provide a functionality, so that if required a higher layer can use it. There is no restriction at all on the higher layer. Do let me know if that is clearer? Thanks, Vishwas
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
