[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Position statement on IKE development



<snipped>

 > Speaking from an operator's viewpoint, I have to agree with Mike and
 > other posters in support of jumping over 'son-of-IKE' and, instead,
 > launching a new initiative for a 'next-generation' IKE that is based
 > on a clearly defined set of *requirements* from the operator and
 > implementor community.  In fact, starting with *requirements draft*
 > BEFORE 'son-of-IKE' would be immensely helpful in gathering consensus
 > on whether it is even worth it to do 'son-of-IKE' or just jump over it
 > and start from scratch. 

I tried to get additional requirements added to the IPSRA requirements
document, but I was told things like keepalives were out of scope due to the
"no changes to IKE" requirements.  These are some of the replies I got from
Paul Hoffman when I suggested additions to the requirements draft.

Mike Horn: 1) The IRAS and IRAC SHOULD support NAT traversal.
Paul Hoffman: We don't yet have a standard for that.
Mike Horn: 2) The IRAC SHOULD support redundant gateways.
Paul Hoffman: This is an application issue, not a protocol issue.
Mike Horn: 3) The IRAS and IRAC SHOULD support a keepalive or make dead
mechanism.
Paul Hoffman: We don't yet have a standard for that.

I thought the point of a requirements draft was to clearly define the things
that need solutions, not how to use existing solutions.  

Mike Horn



Follow-Ups: