|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > ipsec archives|
>>>>> "Yoav" == Yoav Nir <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Yoav> A little. Also like GET-VPN and AC-VPN and Provider-1
Yoav> (apologies to all the vendors I've missed)
Yoav> Those are some of the incompatible solutions by individual
FreeSWAN has a number of local controls whereby one simply lists the
CIDRs that one wishes to be "secure or fail" vs ones that are "nice to
be secure". Many people have implemented MESHs by distributing the
What it is missing in IKEv1 is a way to turn the host<->host tunnels
into subnet<->subnet tunnels, and that would be easy to do in IKEv2 with
>> Sounds like TED:
>> On Thu, October 13, 2011 10:23 pm, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>> Hi all
>>> For years, one of the barriers to the adoption of IPsec was that
>>> configuration didn't scale. With thousands of peers, the PAD and
>>> SPD would become unwieldy, so even where IPsec was deployed it
>>> was often built in hub-and-spoke configurations, not because
>>> policy demanded this, but because it was more convenient to
>>> configure. Individual vendors have incompatible solutions for
>>> this, but they only work with that vendor's products, and within
>>> the same administrative domain.
>>> In this draft, we are proposing that the IPsecME working group
>>> take on a working item to first define the problem, and then
>>> offer solutions that will make IPsec scale better and in an
>>> inter-operable way.
>>> We plan to hold a side meeting in Taipei, and we welcome
>>> comments both before and at that meeting.
>>> _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing
>>> list IPsec_at_ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>> Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.
Yoav> _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing
Yoav> list IPsec@ietf.org
IPsec mailing list