+1 Srini
-----Original Message----- From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Melam Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:47 AM To: Mark Boltz Cc: <ipsec@ietf.org>; <david.bl...@emc.com> <david.bl...@emc.com>; <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> Subject: Re: [IPsec] Large Scale VPN +1 thanks, -suresh On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 07:50:06AM -0800, Mark Boltz wrote: > +1 from me as well. The approach is a good idea, and the WG should proceed as > outlined. > > Mark > > On Dec 12, 2011, at 10:32 AM, <david.bl...@emc.com> > <david.bl...@emc.com> wrote: > > > +1, Thanks, --David > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On > >> Behalf Of Stephen Hanna > >> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:19 AM > >> To: Yoav Nir; IPsecme WG > >> Cc: Paul Hoffman > >> Subject: Re: [IPsec] Large Scale VPN > >> > >> Yes, I definitely think this is a good idea. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Steve > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On > >>> Behalf Of Yoav Nir > >>> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:45 AM > >>> To: IPsecme WG > >>> Cc: Paul Hoffman > >>> Subject: Re: [IPsec] Large Scale VPN > >>> > >>> Hi all > >>> > >>> If we want Paul and Yaron to take this to our AD, we need to show > >>> that there are more people who think these work items are a good > >>> idea. More people than just me and MCR. So please show your > >>> support (or > >>> objections!) soon. An "I think this is a good idea", "I think we > >>> should use ternary logic", or "+1" is all it takes. > >>> > >>> Yoav > >>> > >>> On Dec 8, 2011, at 10:06 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Agree. How about: > >>>> > >>>> In an environment with many IPsec gateways and remote clients > >>>> that > >>> share an established trust infrastructure (in a single > >>> administrative domain or across multiple domains), customers want > >>> to get on-demand point-to-point IPsec capability for efficiency. > >>> However, this cannot be feasibly accomplished only with today's > >>> IPsec and IKE due to problems with address lookup, reachability, policy > >>> configuration, etc. > >>>> > >>>> The IPsecME working group will handle this large scale VPN > >>>> problem by > >>> delivering the following: > >>>> > >>>> * The working group will create a problem statement document > >>> including use cases, definitions and proper requirements for > >>> discovery and updates. This document would be solution-agnostic. > >>> Should reach WG last call around October 2012. > >>>> > >>>> * The working group will review and help publish Informational > >>> documents describing current vendor proprietary solutions. These > >>> should be ready for IETF last call by August 2012. > >>>> > >>>> * The working group will choose a common solution for the > >>>> discovery > >>> and update problems that will satisfy the requirements in the > >>> problem statement document. The working group may standardize one > >>> of the vendor solutions, a combination, an superset of such a > >>> solution, or a new protocol. > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> IPsec mailing list > >>> IPsec@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec > >> _______________________________________________ > >> IPsec mailing list > >> IPsec@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec > > > > _______________________________________________ > > IPsec mailing list > > IPsec@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec