Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote:
> I think this solution is such a small solution and already has running
> code, that I would prefer the WG to quickly move this on, while also
> beginning a separate discussion on how to do various different scaling
I think that the multi-SA stuff should be really low impact to IKEv2, and we
should just publish it.
This would be the *interoperable* solution.
> issues (and multi-cpu) in another way, eg by trying to work on an ESPv4
> version. But I would be sad if that work, which I expect will take some
> time, would delay this draft.
ESPv4 is a really good idea.
It will require some experimentation... i.e running code.
To that extent, we might need a WG document (not RFC) that explains how to do
these experiments in a way that does not get in the way of an actual rough
consensus. The experimental (non-interoperable) solutions might involve
having actual hardware, so it may not as trivial as just changing a few lines
of code.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
