IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6tc] Re: Tunneling and Transition Drafts

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr> Fri, 08 April 2005 17:45 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 NAA17185; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 13:45:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJxgx-0002OG-CP; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:54:52 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJxUq-0002gU-6J; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:42:20 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJxUo-0002gG-IA for v6tc@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:42:18 -0400
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 NAA17038 for <v6tc@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 13:42:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr ([192.44.77.17]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJxdb-0002Ad-7p for v6tc@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:51:24 -0400
Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [193.52.74.194]) by laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.11.6p2/8.11.6/2003.04.01) with ESMTP id j38Hg1g13624; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 19:42:01 +0200
Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (localhost.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [127.0.0.1]) by givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j38Hg0aM013080; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 19:42:02 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr)
Message-Id: <200504081742.j38Hg0aM013080@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Subject: Re: [v6tc] Re: Tunneling and Transition Drafts
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:40:00 +0200. <BE7C3A30.F2B04%jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:42:00 +0200
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) at enst-bretagne.fr
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126
Cc: "v6tc@ietf.org" <v6tc@ietf.org>
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: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   My point regarding the lack of support of L2TP in more and more hotels and
   hot spots, and that's why I think the encapsulation should be flexible.
   
=> Can you explain what is the problem? Filtering of some UDP ports?
Something else?

   I've also no idea about how much the 3G folks will like to implement L2TP.
   
=> ADSL folks have already L2TP: only new 3G folks could have a problem
with L2TP.

Regards

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

PS: the real problem of L2TP is its overhead, but as I said at the IETF,
this makes it a good candidate for clever header compression...

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email