Subject: RE: draft-touch-ipsec-vpn-06.txt

From: "Claudio Lordello" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:33:28 -0500

Joe Touch wrote:
> While there are ways to have (as with 2401) an implementation that is 
> IPsec-2401bis compliant that handles dynamic routing using 
> tunnel-mode 
> SAs, it's not ensured. It is ensured that transport mode with 
> non-IPsec 
> tunnels will always accommodate dynamic routing.
> 

That's my point. So you agree that tunnel mode and routing are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and yet your drafts states that in several occasions.

Claudio.

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:56:44 -0800

Claudio Lordello wrote:
> That's my point. So you agree that tunnel mode and routing are
 > not necessarily mutually exclusive, and yet your drafts states
 > that in several occasions.
> 
> Claudio.

Reliable transport and UDP are not mutually exclusive either. IF all the 
packets get there. You cannot rely on an implementation conformant to 
the spec to support dynamic routing - on that information alone.

Our assertion - and the whole document - focuses on the spec. As I've 
already stated, implementation variations outside the spec that cannot 
be relied upon are important as possible mods to the spec only. And 
that's how we discuss them.

This issue, however, is core to the discussions that have already 
occurred within the IPsec WG, as they relate directly to the interaction 
between dynamic routing and IPsec. These are not specific to L3VPNs.

Joe