This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/
[ipv6-wg] RIPE-501 and IPSEC on CPEs
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE-501 and IPSEC on CPEs
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE-501 and IPSEC on CPEs
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Zorz @ go6.si
jan at go6.si
Tue Jul 26 18:04:31 CEST 2011
On 7/26/11 3:44 PM, Ole Troan wrote: >>> My suggestion would be to add (in addition to RFC6204 in >>> mandatory): >>> >>> "If this specification is used for business class CPE, then >>> IPsec-v2 [RFC2401, RFC2406, RFC2402], IKE version 2 (IKEv2) >>> [RFC4306, RFC4718] and ISAKMP [RFC2407, RFC2408, RFC2409] must be >>> supported in addition to RFC6204 requirements" >> >> Any opinions from the WG on this? Otherwise I would add this to the >> spec. >> >> Ole? > > on the fence, but if I had to fall down on one side I think its OK. > perhaps a should? it really depends on the deployment. not all > business deployments require VPNs. which presume is what is the > underlaying reason for requiring this? Ole, thnx for kicking in... So, did you mean something like this in Optional section: "If this specification is used for business class CPE, then it is highly recommended, that IPsec-v2 [RFC2401, RFC2406, RFC2402], IKE version 2 (IKEv2) [RFC4306, RFC4718] and ISAKMP [RFC2407, RFC2408, RFC2409] are unconditionally required in addition to RFC6204 requirements" Would that work? What others think? Cheers, Jan
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE-501 and IPSEC on CPEs
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE-501 and IPSEC on CPEs
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]