inline Klausberger Walter wrote:
>Hi, > >I think the Tunnel MIB was fine, when it was defined, but I do not think >that it was a very good idea to use it as base for L2TP. > This last comment does not make any sense. Using the IP Tunnel MIB as a base mib for IPv4 tunneling strategies was its intent. L2TP used it because it was supposed to. >Maybe you could do >a fast adaptation by changing TOS to traffic class and the like, but don't >we need additional enhancements in the near future. The tunnel MIB is fixed >to IPv4. > The IP Tunnel MIB specifically states that it manages tunnels over IPv4 networks, period, and that tunnels over other networks will require their own management support. > > >I had some discussion with Evan Caves and Dave Thaler during the San Diego >meeting a year ago. This MIB fits for all kind of statically used tunnels >over IPv4, but I found a lot of problems together with dynamically created >tunnels (in LAC case via RADIUS) and L2TP over ATM/Frame Relay (e.g. >endpoint identifier, security,...). > If there are problems with the current MIB definitions then they should be discussed and rectified if necessary. > > >Now we have this new case with IPv6. Next may be MPLS or something else. >Shouldn't we consider an alternativ to the Tunnel MIB as part of a new MIB >for L2TP, which is still no RFC (I wonder if it will ever become an RFC)? Or >should we think of an advanced version of a more generic Tunnel MIB. > >Or should we make a seperate MIB for L2TP over IPv6? (then we should do be >more flexible than the Tunnel MIB)? > If an IP Tunnel MIB for IPv6 networks is defined then L2TP will use that as a base. evan - -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
