Sorry. Here it is with the right file. -Vishwas
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Vishwas Manral <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Lou, > > Here is the latest draft, with all your comments incorporated. > > I will post the draft soon. > > Thanks, > Vishwas > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Vishwas, >> >> I think I see where you're headed. >> >> The text under discussion is: >> >> Routing using the tunnels SHOULD work >> seamlessly without any updates to the higher level application >> configuration i.e. OSPF configuration, when the tunnel parameter >> changes. >> >> I read this a requirement being placed on the higher level protocol, but >> I believe your intent was on the solution. How about rephrasing along >> the lines of a requirement on the ADVPN solution? Perhaps something like: >> >> The ADVPN solution SHOULD NOT increase the amount of information >> required to configure protocols running over IPsec tunnels. >> >> Lou >> >> On 12/6/2012 1:55 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote: >> > 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 >> > >> > >
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
