Hello Yaron, Tero, Ok, I am fine with setting aside some space for private GW identity. Lets set aside 240-255.
Since we have the private space, I guess we don't need the "locally meaningful name" as a GW identity. Vijay On 6/11/09 2:00 AM, "Tero Kivinen" wrote: > Yaron Sheffer writes: >> Hi Vijay, >> >> I agree there is no consensus on the "locally meaningful name". But I'd like >> to hear more opinions before we add new stuff to the draft at this late >> stage. >> >> Regarding private values: We want to encourage experimentation with the >> protocol, and private values are an important part of that. People may not >> have stable documentation when they start to deploy a system, or such >> documentation may be confidential. Private use ranges provide an easy way >> for vendors to deal with such cases. In this particular case, I don't see >> any reason NOT to include a private range. > > The reason I was supporting "locally meaningful name" is that in most > cases the redirection support is used inside one adminstrative domain > and that adminstrative domain often use some kind of centralized > policy distribution system and that means that all clients & gateways > will have some kind of "locally meaningful name" in their centrally > distributed policy and redirecting from one name to another makes more > sense than redirecting from one IP to another. > > As those implementations used there are quite often also from same > vendor I assume private use range could also be used here without any > problems. > > So I think we need at least the private use range so vendors can use > that one number from there as their "locally meaningful name". _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
