Hi Andreas,
On 04 Dec 2013, at 09:59, Andreas Steffen andreas.stef...@strongswan.org
wrote:
...
- No overlay of additional routing protocols is needed.
please note that our proposal does not mandate a routing protocol. We also
support IKEv2 config exchange and treat the protected subnets
On Tue, 3 Dec 2013, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
There is clear working group interest in a standard auto-discovery VPN
solution.
We have agreed-upon requirements [1].
I was unfortunately not really active during the requirements phase.
While I believe there is a need for auto-discovery without
(thread broken intentionally)
Frederic Detienne (fdetienn) fdeti...@cisco.com wrote:
...
- No overlay of additional routing protocols is needed.
please note that our proposal does not mandate a routing protocol. We
also support IKEv2 config exchange and treat the protected
[Changing the subject to avoid poisoning the protocol selection thread
with my author-ness]
On 6/12/13 8:05 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
We have agreed-upon requirements [1].
I was unfortunately not really active during the requirements phase.
While I believe there is a need for auto-discovery
Hi Michael,
Sorry; I must have missed your email or misunderstood your questions. I felt
that so far we had received comments asking whether something can be done but
very few on how. I have been traveling and missed a bunch of emails. I
apologize again if I missed them.
I will split your
On 06 Dec 2013, at 19:41, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
...
I'd rather that you had mandated OSPFv2/3 or someso that I could evaluate the
entire solution.
The point is that we can't mandate that. Each of those protocols have different
properties and are better suited in
