|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > ipsec archives|
How about Dynamic Secure VPN(DSVPN) or Dynamic Secure Mesh VPN(DSMVPN)?
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Hanna
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 5:22 PM
To: Mike Sullenberger
Cc: email@example.com; Chris.Ulliott@cesg.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Re: [IPsec] P2P VPN draft UNCLASSIFIED
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.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Sullenberger [mailto:MLS@Cisco.COM]
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 6:57 PM
> To: Stephen Hanna
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; Chris.Ulliott@cesg.gsi.gov.uk
> Subject: Re: [IPsec] P2P VPN draft UNCLASSIFIED
> 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".
> >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.
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On
> >> Of Ulliott, Chris
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 4:53 PM
> >> To: 'email@example.com'
> >> Subject: Re: [IPsec] P2P VPN draft UNCLASSIFIED
> >> Classification:UNCLASSIFIED
> >> How about "dynamic mesh VPNs" as a title as I think the dynamic
> >> part
> >> 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:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 09:17 PM
> >> To: IPsecme WG <email@example.com>
> >> 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"
> >> * 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
> >> expect the traffic to migrate to other gateways? To go directly
> >> between endpoints? To establish priorities on existing gateways?
> >> Thanks,
> >> Yaron
> | Mike Sullenberger; DSE |
> | firstname.lastname@example.org .:|:.:|:. |
> | Customer Advocacy CISCO |
IPsec mailing list
IPsec mailing list