Thanks for the response.
I suppose it all depends on what kind of service provider
you are and how you measure your 80%.
I think that Router to Router is as equally important to
service providers who do not service end users as Windows to
Tunnel Device is to service providers who do serve end users
directly.
Granted that there are a lot more end users than anything
else which I suppose gets you that 80%, but if there is no
mechanism for Tier 1 Internet providers to better serve
those Tier 2/3 providers who service the last mile and end
users, then there is another problem as well.
In the end, Router to Router is as equally important to
serving those end users.
Michael Fiumano
Senior Network Engineer
IP Core Infrastructure
703-689-5875 Wk
703-598-2434 Cel
michael.f.fiumano sprint.com
-----Original Message-----
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [mailto:jordi.paletconsulintel.es]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:27 PM
To: softwiresietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Notes and Consensus from Interim
Meeting in Hong Kong
Hi Michael,
We aren't denying the need for support in others, but we
like it or not, XP
is 80-85% of the market, and is an important target for what
the WG is
trying to achieve.
How much important is that vs. Router to Router, is why I
asked the point 3)
to weight it.
Anyway my understanding is that in a carrier network most
probably you will
not be using softwires, unless you're needing just a
default route, as it
may be the case if you manage the CPE router.
Regards,
Jordi
> De: "Fiumano, Michael F [NTK]"
<Michael.F.Fiumanosprint.com>
> Responder a: <softwires-bouncesietf.org>
> Fecha: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:06:29 -0600
> Para: <softwiresietf.org>
> Conversación: [Softwires] Notes and Consensus from
Interim Meeting in Hong
> Kong
> Asunto: RE: [Softwires] Notes and Consensus from
Interim Meeting in Hong Kong
>
> Hello,
>
> Why do all solutions "require" Windows at
all??? I have the need to use this
> standard to enable a port on my network to tunnel v6
over my v4 infrastructure
> to a v6 enabled part of my network. I hope that this
is being kept in
> consideration for the solution space.
>
> As an operator of a large network, the problems I see
aren't always from a end
> host. I would prefer an L2TPv3 solution preferably as
we use this technology
> today as a L2 psuedowire transport across our network.
>
> Maybe I am off base, and this is not being given any
attention because it is
> assumed that this will work, but please consider this
when talking to your
> solutions as well.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael Fiumano
> Senior Network Engineer
> IP Core Infrastructure
> 703-689-5875 Wk
> 703-598-2434 Cel
> michael.f.fiumanosprint.com
>
>
>
>
>> De: "Bill Storer (bstorer)"
<bstorercisco.com>
>> Responder a: <bstorercisco.com>
>> Fecha: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:54:46 -0800
>> Para: "Maria A. Dos Santos (mariados)"
<mariadoscisco.com>,
>> <jordi.paletconsulintel.es>,
<softwiresietf.org>
>> Conversación: [Softwires] Notes and Consensus from
Interim Meeting in Hong
>> Kong
>> Asunto: RE: [Softwires] Notes and Consensus from
Interim Meeting in Hong Kong
>>
>> To summarize here:
>>
>> 1. None of the proposed solutions are supported by
standard issue "out of the
>> box" Microsoft Windows. All of the solutions
will require loading extra
>> software on Windows.
>
> I'm not sure if this was a requirement, not in my
opinion. It will be ideal,
> but we know is difficult for old OSs.
>
>> 2. L2TP is closest in the above sense as it is
supported by standard Windows
>> XP for IPv4/IPv4 tunneling.
>
> With a small trick to disable IPsec, but I guess it
could be automated.
>
>> 3. GPL code is available for L2TP.
>
> Same as other solutions.
>
>> 4. L2TP has been implemented in Windows by NTT and
SixXs.
>
> It will be by SixXS, but agree, within a good timing in
my opinion (actually
> shorter timing that I will say is the required one, but
that's a different
> discussion).
>
>> 5. Most importantly, L2TP is widely supported by
the major concentrator
>> vendors.
>
> Yes, for two main router/concentrator vendors, should
be ok.
>
>>
>
> Now, if you compare L2TP with TSP (I'm not advocating
for one or the other,
> just trying to analyze the situation), TSP seems better
to integrate from
> the client perspective and no need to play tricks in
any OS. However has
> less support from the server side.
>
> So the question is again, IF we want to have a fair
comparison:
> 1) Technical detailed comparison of different aspects
among both of them,
> pros and cons (i.e., overhead, prefix delegation, DNS,
etc.).
>
> 2) How much time it will take for router/concentrator
vendors to implement
> TSP, and if it will happen in case we choose it.
>
> 3) How much weight we give to the support in routers
vs. the support in
> clients.
>
> Not easy ...
>
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Maria A. Dos Santos (mariados)
>>> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 12:02 PM
>>> To: jordi.paletconsulintel.es;
softwiresietf.org
>>> Subject: RE: [Softwires] Notes and Consensus
from Interim
>>> Meeting in Hong Kong
>>>
>>> Jordi,
>>>
>>> We googled "l2tp client" and found
SixXs release note mentioned
>>>
>>> "L2TP Support (Yes, even under Windows
one can do IPv6 in
>>> PPP in L2TP  "
>>>
>>> a window client that will have l2tp capability.
>>>
>>> Bill queried Jeroen Massar at SixXs and
confirmed that the
>>> l2tp capability
>>> will probably be available in 2 months to the
public.
>>>
>>> http://www.
sixxs.net/tools/aiccu/history/
>>>
>>> Just one example...
>>>
>>> alice
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
[mailto:jordi.paletconsulintel.es]
>>>> Sent: Friday, 10 March, 2006 9:30
>>>> To: softwiresietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Notes and
Consensus from Interim
>>>> Meeting in Hong Kong
>>>>
>>>> Hi David,
>>>>
>>>> I think the main discussion here has been
related to the lack
>>>> of IPv6 support for L2TP in XP (and I guess
is the same in
>>>> W2003). Unless I misread the link that you
provided, I think
>>>> doesn't mention IPv6 support at all.
>>>>
>>>> I also recall having checked with Microsoft
a couple of times
>>>> and they confirmed that will be only
available in Vista. Of
>>>> course, this can change, and that will be
great actually !
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Jordi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> De: David Ward <dwardcisco.com>
>>>>> Responder a: <softwires-bouncesietf.org>
>>>>> Fecha: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:12:36 -0600
>>>>> Para: David Ward <dwardcisco.com>, "softwiresietf.org"
>>>>> <softwiresietf.org>,
"Durand, Alain"
>>>> <Alain_Durandcable.comcast.com>
>>>>> Conversación: [Softwires] Notes and
Consensus from Interim
>>>> Meeting in
>>>>> Hong Kong
>>>>> Asunto: Re: [Softwires] Notes and
Consensus from Interim
>>> Meeting in
>>>>> Hong Kong
>>>>>
>>>>> Although I am sitting back allowing
folks to discuss
>>>> various issues, I
>>>>> had to step in w/ the results of a 5
min google search as
>>>> there hasn't
>>>>> been much information presented on the
list wrt what is actually
>>>>> available vs
>>>>> conjecture:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> From Microsoft on L2TP clients:
>>>>>
>>>>> Explains how to get L2TP on XP and
earlier versions of
>>>> windows (yes, I
>>>>> wrote "XP").
>>>>>
>>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;
en-us;818043
>>>>>
>>>>> Alice has already sent out how to turn
off IPsec.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Clients for POSIX OS:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://sourc
eforge.net/projects/rp-l2tp/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A quick google gave this information on
L2TP as well:
>>>>>
>>>>> 0) Cisco support since 2000
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Juniper:
>>>>>
>>>>> ht
tp://www.juniper.net/products/junose/105016.html
>>>>>
>>>>> The ERX now supports IPv6 for BRAS (PPP
& L2TP)
>>>>>
>>>>> (Since at least September 2003)
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Laurel (now ECI):
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://www.convergedigest.com/PacketSystem
s/packetsysarticle.asp?ID=11
>>>>> 350
>>>>>
>>>>> Laurel is also releasing new system
software that adds non-stop
>>>>> sessions,
>>>>> IPv6 and LAC (L2TP Access
Concentrator) functionality.
>>>>> http://www.laurelnetwor
ks.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Since at least 07-Jun-04
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) Nortel:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://www.nortelnetworks.com/products/lib
rary/collateral/66014.25-10-
>>>>> 01.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> "Nortel Networks GGSN acts as an
L2TP Access Concentrator (LAC).
>>>>> Address allocation, L2TP Network Server
(LNS) and ipv6
>>> routing can
>>>>> take place within those corporate
administrative domains.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Posted October 2001)
>>>>>
>>>>> It appears that both client and servers
are available for
>>>> desired OS
>>>>> and interoperability from various
commercial vendors.
>>>>>
>>>>> -DWard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>>> Softwires mailing list
>>>>> Softwiresietf.org
>>>>> http
s://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
**********************************************
>>>> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
>>>>
>>>> Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
>>>> Slides 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>> Softwires mailing list
>>>> Softwiresietf.org
>>>> http
s://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Softwires mailing list
>>> Softwiresietf.org
>>> http
s://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
>
> Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
> Slides 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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwiresietf.org
> http
s://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwiresietf.org
> http
s://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides 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.
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwiresietf.org
http
s://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwiresietf.org
http
s://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
|