Vishwas,
Much thanks! I think we're almost there. The sole remaining item is
the last sentence of 4.1 requirement 3:
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.
Per my previous message, I read this as 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 6:53 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote:
> Here finally!!! Sorry about the duplicate mails.
>
> -Vishwas
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Vishwas Manral <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Sorry. Here it is with the right file.
>
> -Vishwas
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Vishwas Manral
> <[email protected] <mailto:[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]
> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
