Saurabh,
Hi,
We'd prefer
dmvpn(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-detienne-dmvpn-00) to become
the wg document.
The main reason for our recommendation are:
- It is what customers are asking for.
This statement may represent a lot of skew if the sample set if Cisco
customers who are told this is an existing solution they can just enable
:-).
- We actually prefer that there are 2 separate protocols that
co-operate to build the complete solution as it gives us the
flexibility for each one to exist without mandating the other.
I worry that DMVPN allocates too much secruity-relevant contorl to the
routing sub-system. Thus I prefer ADVPN.
- It was fairly easy to build a solution using open-nhrp and strongswan.
I thought prior message exchanges indicated that the NHRP being used
here included extensions not in the RFC. I prefer choices based on
compliance with existing RFCs, or explicitly-declared, new proposals.
Hence, I prefer ADVPN.
Steve
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
