-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mark Townsley wrote:
...
|> These sound okay but I would like to see "tunnels" split into two: one
|> type where there is a setup phase and sharing state between the
|> endpoints, and another where there is no shared state: an endpoint can
|> encapsulate a packet, toss it to another endpoint, and the receiving
|> endpoint will decapsulate it and do the right thing. There are three
|> qualitatively different levels in the setup mechanism and where shared
|> state resides.
...
| So, I'm afraid this would be like trying to characterize something as
| black and white, where in reality there are shades of gray.
There are basically known variations of state; these aren't new to tunnels:
- preshared, static
- negotiated, hard
- negotiated, soft
Another dimension is who is involved in state coordination:
- third party informs both ends (dual push)
- third party triggers one end, and that end coordinates
with the other end (push, negotiate)
- third party triggers one end, and the other end fetches
state when needed (push/pull)
| What perhaps you are getting at though is whether you typically see a
| control protocol between endpoints in order to operate the tunnel, or
| whether the tunnel itself is "dynamic" in nature.
Is that covered by the above "who is involved" list?
Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIgMjcE5f5cImnZrsRAlANAKDBWMiFTOYz2vX8rsovuECznbg+tgCg8cx3
z6y49H0DE1lZzgdLf5qD+LI=
=F77W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
