Re: [v6tc] Let the market decide or not: L2TP and/or TSP

Hi Alain,

My comments below, in-line.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Alain Durand <alain@tycool.net>
> Responder a: <v6tc-bounces@ietf.org>
> Fecha: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 11:49:23 -0700
> Para: "v6tc@ietf.org" <v6tc@ietf.org>
> Asunto: [v6tc] Let the market decide or not: L2TP and/or TSP
> 
> BOF chair hat still on, I'm going to try to summarize the discussion so
> far.
> 
> - Time to market is critical.
> - TSP & L2TP are the two natural candidates

Or something better if we can make it quickly.

> - The end point discovery is a difficult but orthogonal issue that
> should not
>     clout the discussion on tunnel configuration. I'm not going to
> address
>     it in this email.
> 
> Back to TSP & L2TP.
> 
> - L2TP is standardized, but a document explaining how to use it
>  in the IPv6 transition phase might be needed.
> 
> - 3 issues have been raised with L2TP:
> - large number of RTT. This is only on issue in low latency networks
>   such as 3G. If we are NOT looking for a combined solution for
> fixed/wireless 3G
>   this is a non issue, if we are, this is a show stopper.
> - Lack of a supported implementation of IPv6 over PPP on a very
> critical OS.
>  IMHO, this is issue for the company that makes this OS, not for the
> IETF...
>  ... on the other hand, time to market is critical.
> - Lack of a complete non authenticated mode.
>  This needs to be investigate further, as it is not absolutely clear
> to me
>   it can't be done.
> 
> - Issues with TSP:
> - not been through community review (i.e. no RFC to point to)
> - re-opening TSP might sounds like duplicating L2TP

The other issue with TSP that was commented was the unnecessary overhead
because the usage of XML, this could be improved very easily, I guess.

> 
> Now, here are the questions I would like this group to try to answer:
> 
> 1) is a combined mechanism for fixed/wireless 3G network still
> important?

Somehow I could say yes, because we don't want to have in the small devices
(such as cellular phones, both protocols, for example when they have both 3G
and WLAN interfaces).

But an alternative is a self adaptative protocol which is actually like both
well integrated.

> 
> 2) Is it the case that we have to define BOTH an L2TP based mechanism
> AND TSP
>       with all the operational/implementation headaches of having to
> support 2 things
>       in order to "let the market decide" or do people think we need one
> and only one
>       mechanism?

Yes, I will say so, if possible. But I'm still not excluding the option of
something else. I mean, if we do it quickly, why not choose among L2TP, TSP
or a new protocol which integrates the good things that we learned from
several of the available protocols (I explained this in my first email on
this thread).

> 
> 
> Please focus your answers on those two questions.
> 
> - Alain.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6tc mailing list
> v6tc@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6tc

************************************
Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Registration open. Information available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

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