Re: [v6tc] Re: Tunneling and Transition Drafts

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 13:12 +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Jerome Durand wrote:
>>> The point here is that as an ISP, I'd prefer to work with a standard,
>>> manageable and available solution. Is one already available? If yes that is
>>> worth documenting how to use/deploy it (in v6ops WG). If not, then we have to
>>> adopt a new standard (in v6tc as v6ops is not made for it).
>>
>> L2TP ?
>
> Client for all OS's that support it doing IPv6 ?

AFAIK, as L2TP layers on top of PPP, you only need PPP to support 
IPv6, right ?

Anyway, anything that's in the real of implementations has issues in 
one way or another.

As I've said in the past, I see no point in standardizing TSP as it is 
because L2TP provides the same functionality.  One the other hand, if 
we had requirements which cannot be satisfied (in a backward 
compatible manner) by either L2TP or TSP, it makes sense to design 
something new.

One such requirement could be low latency and overhead; at the moment, 
however, it is not obvious whether the different wireless communities 
(including what Mobile IPv6 and NEMO WGs are currently discussing wrt 
NAT traversal -- _yet another_ tunneling mechanism, this time 
(probably) specific to Mobile IP!) were sufficiently aware of this 
effort to bring forth theirs requirements.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
v6tc mailing list
v6tc@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6tc