Thanks Brain for the alert. RFC5571 is a hub-and-spoke architecture using 6over4overl2tpv2 where 4over6 doesn't need the l2tpv2 encap.
/Yiu On 3/31/11 3:12 AM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]> wrote: >Terminology alert: > >On 2011-03-31 10:12, Lee, Yiu wrote: >> See inline: >> >> On 3/30/11 12:55 PM, "Ole Troan" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> reading drafts during the plenary post working group session. >>> >>> 1) what does this solution offer that isn't in RFC5571? different >>> encapsulation? >> >> Similar but there is a major difference. RFC5571 is 6over4 using l2tpv2 >>to > >No, RFC 2529 defines "6over4". Please don't create confusion by using >"6over4" to mean anything except RFC 2529. > > Brian > >> punch through the NAT. This doesn't need this requirement, so l2tpv2 >>isn't >> needed. >> >>> 2) host initiated. does this propose to support hosts behind a CPE? how >>> would they then be >>> provisioned? >> >> The idea is the CPE will be the dhcp relay agent which will relay the >>dhcp >> requests from the hosts behind the CPE to the dhcp server. That said, >> there are details we need to sort out such as the CPE must be also >> provisioned an ipv4 address from the same subnet to support >>hair-pinning. >> Also the servers behind the CPE are normal servers, we need to detail >> how/when to create the binding in the NAT table so that it won't require >> the servers to send keepalive to the TC. >> >> Regards, >> Yiu >> >>> cheers, >>> Ole >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Softwires mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
