Re: [v6tc] Re: Tunneling and Transition Drafts

"W. Mark Townsley" <townsley@cisco.com> Fri, 08 April 2005 16:44 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 MAA11594; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 12:44:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJwjO-0007ku-JW; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:53:18 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJwZ7-00041l-Tl; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:42:41 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DJwZ5-00041b-LF for v6tc@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:42:39 -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 MAA11116 for <v6tc@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 12:42:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DJwhs-0007g8-0p for v6tc@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:51:45 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Apr 2005 13:04:02 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: i="3.92,88,1112587200"; d="scan'208"; a="43714259:sNHT2689768230"
Received: from fruitpie.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@fruitpie.cisco.com [64.102.16.27]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j38GgHjI007242; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 12:42:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.83.1.101] (rtp-townsley-vpn4.cisco.com [10.83.1.101]) by fruitpie.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with SMTP id BGQ10149; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4256B464.6040205@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:42:12 -0400
From: "W. Mark Townsley" <townsley@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
Subject: Re: [v6tc] Re: Tunneling and Transition Drafts
References: <200504081104.j38B4hh4023080@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <1112964824.26936.102.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> <42568FF5.8020401@cisco.com> <1112976683.1496.23.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <1112976683.1496.23.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Jeroen Massar wrote:

> On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 10:06 -0400, W. Mark Townsley wrote:
> 
>>Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 14:32 +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>>I got the same answer. But company roadmaps could change, I'm not sure about
>>>>the actual roadmap on this.
>>>
>>>
>>>Longhorn will be out in 2007? 2008? Even then, it would require people
>>>to install patches, and hearing that many have not even bothered to
>>>install SP2 I don't see many people installing such an upgrade either.
>>>I do hope it changes, but still L2TP will not cross most NAT's.
>>
>>Jumping in with my old l2tpext hat on just to correct this inaccuracy: L2TP 
>>operates over UDP 1701. Port 115 is for RFC3931 L2TPv3 "IP" mode that was
> 
> 
> Thanks for the correction & clarification. I'll take that you meant
> "Proto 115" instead of the port.

Yes, IP "Protocol" 115. Typo.

 > When used in this mode then it will,
> just like the others cross a NAT with ease, unless firewalled of course.
> Because of the Keepalive protocol it will also stay 'up'. When the
> source address changes (dhcp change, change of wireless net) one will
> also automatically reconnect, might have a small delay but should work.
> 
> We still miss an actual implementation on the more widely deployed
> platforms and as those are in the big target area this will be something
> many people will want. I am actually tempted all of a sudden to just
> implement it, but unfortunately not enough time for that.

Or be tempted to implement IPv6 for PPP on Windows XP and sell it (or offer it 
as shareware) for ~$9.95 for a while... Until Longhorn comes out, you might make 
a little money on the side... (whether L2TP is used for v6tc or not).

In the end, a lot of implementations may actually be CPEs rather than hosts, in 
which case having the linux implementation helps.

- Mark

> 
> Greets,
>  Jeroen
> 

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