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

[secdir] [New-work] Re: WG Review: Layer 3 Virtual PrivateNetworks (l3vpn)



At 8:19 PM -0700 6/17/03, Alex Zinin wrote:
 > Also, I continue to object to the term "VPN" when encryption is not
 involved. They maybe "virtually-private" networks to some. They are
 as secure as in-band signaling was in POTS, and SS7 is now. I.e. not very.

 So, call the group l3vn - layer-3 virtual networks.
The term "VPN" has been used within the context of this work for quite
a while both in the industry and the IETF. It seems that changing it
now is not warranted and would only cause confusion.
Possibly, but you can also possibly be clearer about what type of VPN you are talking about. For over a year, the VPN Consortium has been using two terms to differentiate the types of VPNs: secure VPNs and trusted VPNs. These terms have been accepted favorably by both VPN vendors and the press. (Marketing departments, of course, still prefer the confusing shorthand.)

A more detailed set of definitions can be found in our white paper at <http://www.vpnc.org/vpn-technologies.pdf>. Obviously, anyone is free to use the terms there; in fact, they originated with discussions with some of our members who support both types of VPNs, most notably Cisco.

Having the IETF be clear about which type of VPN is being discussed would go a long way towards helping users understand the properties that they are getting when they use a particular VPN service.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium