Yaron Sheffer writes: > Hi Vijay, > > I agree there is no consensus on the "locally meaningful name". But I'd like > to hear more opinions before we add new stuff to the draft at this late > stage. > > Regarding private values: We want to encourage experimentation with the > protocol, and private values are an important part of that. People may not > have stable documentation when they start to deploy a system, or such > documentation may be confidential. Private use ranges provide an easy way > for vendors to deal with such cases. In this particular case, I don't see > any reason NOT to include a private range.
The reason I was supporting "locally meaningful name" is that in most cases the redirection support is used inside one adminstrative domain and that adminstrative domain often use some kind of centralized policy distribution system and that means that all clients & gateways will have some kind of "locally meaningful name" in their centrally distributed policy and redirecting from one name to another makes more sense than redirecting from one IP to another. As those implementations used there are quite often also from same vendor I assume private use range could also be used here without any problems. So I think we need at least the private use range so vendors can use that one number from there as their "locally meaningful name". -- kivi...@iki.fi _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
