Re: l2tp support on OS's Re: [v6tc] Re: Tunneling and Transition Drafts

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

> I guess you forget:
> 1) Cellular phones, I don't think none of them support or even has plans for
> L2TP.

Yes, from what I have seen this is probably quite true.

> 2) Lots of low cost CPEs.

I have seen low cost linksys CPEs running IPv6/PPP/L2TP. I can't imagine it is 
too difficult for others.

> 
> Both of this options represent also a big market share.

Certainly. Big enough perhaps that each can support their own tunneling protocol.

Given the different characteristics of the underlying network, variant platform 
geneology, as well as intended application, usage and necessary time-frame, I 
have wonder if there is a lot to be gained from trying to force a single 
one-size-fits-all protocol here.

- Mark

> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>De: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
>>Organización: Unfix
>>Responder a: <v6tc-bounces@ietf.org>
>>Fecha: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 23:15:56 +0200
>>Para: "W. Mark Townsley" <townsley@cisco.com>
>>CC: "v6tc@ietf.org" <v6tc@ietf.org>
>>Asunto: l2tp support on OS's Re: [v6tc] Re: Tunneling and Transition Drafts
>>
>>Short summary first, what supports it:
>> - Windows XP SP2 does not have it
>> - Windows Longhorn will have it (they say),
>>   but out in 2007 or most likely later and then needs to be deployed
>>   and be fed to the users, who will stick with XP for some time anyway.
>> - *BSD
>> - Linux
>> - Most CPE's (Cisco/Yahama/...)
>>
>>But Windows is a huge market for most ISP's...
>>
>>On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 15:21 -0400, W. Mark Townsley wrote:
>>
>>>Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nevertheless I'll put it somewhere on that big list, lets see how many
>>>>parties
>>>>get canceled this week...
>>>
>>>I think a decent GPL or free IPv6 PPP for Windows XP would be a service to
>>>the 
>>>community in general. Please write one.
>>
>>Some other people convinced me and I actually was under the impression
>>that L2TP would not work over NAT thus I need to make up for it. It also
>>allows quite a number of scenarios to be solved more easily.
>>I don't really like GPL but that is off topic for sure. Well the night
>>reading is printed out ;) <hint> Let's make L2TP a viable option.
>>
>>
>>>>>In the end, a lot of implementations may actually be CPEs rather than
>>>>>hosts, in 
>>>>>which case having the linux implementation helps.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Linux supports it, but not too many people want to actually touch their
>>>>gear.
>>>>and for most of those people Linux is still scary.
>>>
>>>For a CPE? Linksys uses Linux.
>>
>>I know, but I meant the original image, as customers might still be
>>holding back on using a non-vendor image. It would thus be really nice
>>to have images that defaultly are IPv6 enabled, and I mean this for
>>*all* the products that are available.
>>
>>The OpenWRT images, with which I flashed my box, indeed support IPv6 and
>>getting a lt2p client/daemon on it should not be an issue indeed.
>>
>>Greets,
>> Jeroen
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
> 

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