On Apr 26, 2014, at 12:51 PM, joel jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I believe that "lack of proper IPv6 support in popular VPN tunnel products" >> needs to be either substantiated or dropped. Also, it's not clear to me what >> is "proper support" versus (perhaps) "improper support". > > I disagree and i think the comments from present and past implementers > (myself included) corroborate this assertion. naming specific products > doesn't actually serve a useful purpose. My point is that the comments on broken implementations relate to a subset of the universe of "VPN Products". My understanding is that these relate to software-based "VPN client endpoints" (happy to be corrected otherwise) but *not* to the many other types of "VPN products". I agree that naming specific products is not helpful at all. That was not my suggestion. But, implying that this problem exists generally in "VPN products" does not help either. Are you aware of this bug present in *any* RFC 4364 L3VPN? I still think that the title and abstract are overly-scoped, and more precision in definition will help the document. Thanks, Carlos.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
