I agree.
-Vishwas
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Michael Richardson
wrote:
>
> I agree: it's not a "hard problem". It's an annoying problem, and the
> lack of a dynamic solution causes poor experiences for users.
>
> For a relatively static group of non-moving leaf gateways, even a very
> larg
I agree: it's not a "hard problem". It's an annoying problem, and the
lack of a dynamic solution causes poor experiences for users.
For a relatively static group of non-moving leaf gateways, even a very
large group, a bit of scripting could generate most of the full mesh
policy, and normal IKEv2
1. Let us not say this is a hard problem, it sounds like NP hard problem
(which indeed it's not)
Just rephrasing it, Suggested Resolution: Add a Requirements section that
lays out the problems that any solution must address.
>"#211: We should talk more about why this is a hard problem."
>
>This t
Second issue. Please comment on the suggested resolution.
Thanks,
Steve
-Original Message-
From: ipsecme issue tracker [mailto:t...@tools.ietf.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 6:49 PM
To: yaronf.i...@gmail.com; draft-ietf-ipsecme-p2p-vpn-prob...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [ipsecme] #211:
