Re: RE: Addresses in traffic selectors in IKEv2

[Charles Lynn <clynn@bbn.com>]

Hi Casey,

This question is for all the folks who take issue with ranges, not just you.

> We are not supporting ranges in our implementation for this same reason.

Since there is an easily implemented 1-to-1 mapping between a range and
the set of prefixes that represent the same range, why is supporting
ranges (in the protocol exchanges) a problem?

If an admin needs to express a range, I think it would be more concise
in the protocol, and probably in the SPD, and also less prone to admin
typo syndrome to say a.b.c.d-e.f.g.h than to have the admin type in
all the corresponding prefixes.

Granted one would then have a one-to-many mapping between SPD/SAD and
one's CAM; the alternative would be multiple SPD/SAD entries pointing
a single CAM entry -- seems like that would take more memory than one
SPD/SAD and a list.

Can someone point out what points I an overlooking?

Charlie