[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on: draft-vlado-ipsec-keep-alive-00.txt
Comments below -
Vlado Zafirov wrote:
>
> Hi Stephane,
> Well that's my first internet-draft I ever published so please excuse me
> for any mistakes I made.
>
> I meant to make very simple, low-bandwidth and easy to implement exchange.
>
> I read very fast the proposal draft that you was so kind to send me. It' very
> very good. However I believe too complicated and needs a lot of work
> to be implemented and it's pretty bandwidth intesive.
>
> About comments:
> 1. Yes, it's not a problem. I will make that change and resubmit the draft.
> However when Client dies it's just simple mater of reconnecting. Usually
> problem is when Secure Gateway loose connection because it's should be
> restarted or this connection dropped manually.
>
> 2. I didn't thought of that and I was not aware of that practice. Thank you
> so much for the feedback. This will be changed too.
>
> Stephane Beaulieu wrote:
>
> > Hi Vlado,
> >
> > I'm not sure if you were aware of it, but there is another Internet-Draft
> > whose goal it is to provide the same functionality. See
> > http://www.vpnc.org/draft-ietf-ipsec-heartbeats
> >
> > It has received quite a bit of feedback, and I think that most people are
> > pretty satisfied with it.
This is absolute nonsense. Take a straw poll right now.
<much trimmed after this...>
All in all, I think the rough consensus was that a much simpler
mechanism would suffice.
Scott
Follow-Ups:
References: