Re: Another field for traffic selector?

[jeremy.de_clercq@alcatel.be]

> I'm not sure what to call it, or what size it ought to be.
> Other protocols need to solve this problem. The "VLAN tag"
> is used in 802. "Partition ID" is used in infiniband. I've
> heard the name "virtual router ID" for something, but I think
> that's a terrible name (since it's a virtual net, not a virtual
> router). If anyone can suggest an already-recognized name
> for this concept, an already-recognized size of the field,
> and an already-recognized numbering scheme, we should adopt it.
> Otherwise, I'd suggest the name "virtual net", size 2 bytes,
> and a numbering scheme that is local to F1 and F2 (someone
> would configure it compatibly at the two ends and map it
> to specific customer nets).

For some VPN approaches, the PPVPN WG refers to the "Virtual Private
Networks Identifier" defined in RFC 2685.

> So, there are two issues:
> a) I think we need to add this field to the traffic selector in IKE

1. I support this idea, and 
2. if it is accepted by the ipsec community, I propose to allign with
the ppvpn wg.

thanks,
Jeremy.


> b) If at this late date extra things (this plus the uniquifier)
> are coming up as needing to be in the traffic selector, perhaps
> the encoding of traffic selector should be more flexible, so
> that new fields can be added in the future.
> 
> Radia