[v6tc] goals of tunneling configuration protocol
Prakash Jayaraman <prakash@net.com> Tue, 08 March 2005 05:11 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22086; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 00:11:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D8X2O-0002ON-7S; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:13:44 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D8Wzw-0001bQ-Ch; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:11:12 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D8Wzu-0001bG-BA for v6tc@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:11:10 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22075 for <v6tc@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 00:11:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mx02.net.com ([134.56.3.132]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D8X2D-0002Nm-DM for v6tc@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:13:34 -0500
Received: from mx02-int.net.com (mx02-int.net.com [134.56.112.14]) by mx02.net.com (Switch-3.1.3/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j285FRTM029289 for <v6tc@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 21:15:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fmt-ex01.net.com ([134.56.112.251]) by mx02-int.net.com (Switch-3.1.3/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j285FQJk008464 for <v6tc@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 21:15:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fmt-owa02.net.com ([134.56.112.254]) by fmt-ex01.net.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 7 Mar 2005 21:10:01 -0800
Received: from [130.129.67.19] ([172.16.9.149]) by fmt-owa02.net.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Mon, 7 Mar 2005 21:09:57 -0800
Message-ID: <422D33A5.1030201@net.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 23:09:57 -0600
From: Prakash Jayaraman <prakash@net.com>
Organization: Net.Com
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: v6tc@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Mar 2005 05:09:57.0973 (UTC) FILETIME=[12A77850:01C5239D]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=8.0 tests=AWL autolearn=ham version=2.63
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on fmt-spam02
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [v6tc] goals of tunneling configuration protocol
X-BeenThere: v6tc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6tc.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6tc>, <mailto:v6tc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/v6tc>
List-Post: <mailto:v6tc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6tc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6tc>, <mailto:v6tc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: v6tc-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: v6tc-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Comments on the draft Goals for Tunneling Configuration - draft-palet-v6tc-goals-tunneling-00.txt > 1. Introduction: >... > However, this is not the case for the access network, which may > involve different types of layer two technologies. In all the cases, > in order to facilitate the transition of those access networks, which This first line talks about "different layer two technologies" - but it does not tell why it is significant only for access networks. Core networks have different layer two technologies as well. Line 327: > o IPv4 multicast is not widely available, so the tunnel > configuration protocol should work in IPv4 network environments > where IPv4 multicast is not provided. Video-broadcast over IP is being designed (slow deployment due to bandwidth constraints in the access network) for DSL/FTTH/FTTP access networks already. I presume that IPv4-multicast will see widespread use within the next couple of years. We already know of a few customers who are using IPv4-multicast already. It may be ok to restrict the scope of the BOF or the proposed protocol, but the assumption about the availability of IPv4-multicast may not stay true. > 4.2.4 Latency in Set-up Phases The lifetime of the tunnel needs to be discussed somewhere. Is the tunnel-endpoint on the client-side considered an IP interface? A tunnel is a point-to-point link by definition. However, there is a widespread tendency to use a bunch of point-to-point links at the edges to emulate a multi-access network. Although the draft states that the tunnel will not be made "perfect" (i.e. not all IPv6 services will be available over this tunnel), unless it is stated explicitly otherwise in the BOF charter, enhancements are likely to happen. The following are some of the issues that need to be addressed by the BOF charter, either as a goal or a non-goal. - emulating multi-access links, with a single IP subnet, by using a lot of tunnels (broadcast and multicast are problems) - MTU:- the tunnel-endpoint at the ISP side should not have to do any sort of packet reassembly. Having reassembly buffers for each of the tunnels is not a scalable or cost-effective solution. Packets going from the CPE-side going upstream must be fragmented to a lower value (using TCP MSS or lower IP-mtu). Packets going from ISP-side to the CPE may be fragmented if necessary. Fragmentation is simple - it does not require resources on the edge routers. - Should routing protocols be able to work over such tunnels? - tunnel load-balancing, failover, tunnel-switching etc. - prakash _______________________________________________ v6tc mailing list v6tc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6tc
- Re: [v6tc] goals of tunneling configuration proto… Alain Durand
- Re: [v6tc] goals of tunneling configuration proto… Prakash Jayaraman
- Re: [v6tc] goals of tunneling configuration proto… Prakash Jayaraman
- [v6tc] goals of tunneling configuration protocol Prakash Jayaraman