Vishwas / Brian,
See below
On 12/13/2012 12:54 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> Thanks a lot for your comments and sorry I did not reply immediately. I
> have still been waiting for the version 2 to upload. I have sent it to
> the [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> address.
>
> My comments are inline and will be updated in version 03. We could do it
> in version 02 too if it does not get posted soon enough. The only issue
> I have is with the L3VPN comment and would want Lou Berger's opinion on
> it, as he thought the text would add value there (though if you see
> previous comments I am more of the opinion similar to yours).
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Brian Weis <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Hi Steve & Vishwas,
>
> Here are a couple of comments on the proposed -02 sent a few days ago.
>
...
> Requirement 14 says "The ADVPN solution MUST support Provider Edge
> (PE) based VPN's". This requirement seems unfair to the end point
> use cases in 2.1 and 2.3, or even gateway-to-gateway ADVPN solutions
> that have nothing to do with L3VPNs!
Agreed, but the requirement is on the solution, not on a particular
implementation.
> I think you're trying to say it
> must be possible to build an ADVPN solution that meets the
> requirements of L3VPN, which I have no problem
Yes, this was my basic point.
> with but I don't
> think think this it's a fair requirement to put in Section 4.
I agree, it's not fair to have this as a specific implementation
requirement, but I think it's fair that this case must be supported by
the overall solution -- which is simply the previous point.
> Is
> there anything beyond the new text you added in 2.2 regarding L3VPN
> that needs to be said?
>
> VM> No I did not add any extra text for L3VPN besides this one. The idea
> was that if IPsec over GRE as PE to PE communication tunnels the ADVPN
> technology should not preclude such a solution.Like I have said earlier
> I do not have strong opinion regarding this requirement. Lou thought
> this should be there and I asked the list if there were objections to
> this, and I did not hear anyone object, so I added it.
>
> Lets try to hear from Lou on this.
>
> ...
I think I've covered it above.
Much thanks,
Lou
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
