Of course, you're right. The acronym DMVPN makes this a very bad choice. Thanks for pointing that out.
I'll throw out a few ideas here: Dynamic Direct VPN (DDVPN) Shortcut VPN (SVPN) Dynamic Scalable VPN (DSVPN) Dynamic Efficient VPN (DEVPN) Other ideas or comments on these are most welcome. Thanks, Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Sullenberger [mailto:m...@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 6:57 PM > To: Stephen Hanna > Cc: ipsec@ietf.org; chris.ulli...@cesg.gsi.gov.uk > Subject: Re: [IPsec] P2P VPN draft UNCLASSIFIED > > Steve, > > I do not think changing the name to "Dynamic Mesh VPN" is a good idea. > The first thing that is going to happen is that it is going to be > shortened to "DMVPN" and then we have conflict with Cisco DMVPN, which > would be confusing and also "DMVPN" is a registered trademark. It > would be best to use some other synonym for "Dynamic Mesh". > > Mike. > > >Upon reflection, I can see how "Point to Point VPNs" is problematic > >as a description of the problem. Really it's more about dynamically > >creating SAs so that any endpoint or gateway can communicate directly > >with any other, as permitted by policy. And how can we do this in a > >manageable manner in a large-scale environment where endpoints are > >mobile and configurations and policies change often? > > > >So "Dynamic Mesh VPNs" is fine with me. Whatever the WG feels is best. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Steve > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On > Behalf > >> Of Ulliott, Chris > >> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 4:53 PM > >> To: 'ipsec@ietf.org' > >> Subject: Re: [IPsec] P2P VPN draft UNCLASSIFIED > >> > >> Classification:UNCLASSIFIED > >> > >> How about "dynamic mesh VPNs" as a title as I think the dynamic part > is > >> key here and probably an important aspect of the use cases. > >> > >> Chris > >> > >> [This message has been sent by a mobile device] > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Yaron Sheffer [mailto:yaronf.i...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 09:17 PM > >> To: IPsecme WG <ipsec@ietf.org> > >> Subject: [IPsec] P2P VPN draft > >> > >> Hi Steve, > >> > >> a few initial comments. > >> > >> * The draft is short and clear. Thanks for that! > >> * I have a problem with the title (and even more, with the "file > >> name" of the draft). P2P is usually perceived as peer-to-peer, > >> which skews the discussion towards one particular use case, that > >> of endpoint-to-endpoint. I suggest to use "Mesh IPsec VPN" > instead. > >> * I am unclear about 2.2: so what if you "suddenly need to > exchange a > >> lot of data". How is it different from normal IP traffic load > >> management? The text is simply too vague here. Ideally, should > we > >> expect the traffic to migrate to other gateways? To go directly > >> between endpoints? To establish priorities on existing gateways? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Yaron > > > +------------------------------------------------+ > | Mike Sullenberger; DSE | > | m...@cisco.com .:|:.:|:. | > | Customer Advocacy CISCO | > +------------------------------------------------+ _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
