Ole, -----Original Message----- > >>> 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 >> punch through the NAT. This doesn't need this requirement, so l2tpv2 >>isn't >> needed. > >RFC5571 specifies both IPv4 over IPv6 and IPv6 over IPv4. >so the difference with this draft is that you rather want RFC2473 >encapsulation rather than PPP/UDP? > >the main argument for choosing L2TP in the first place, was that all the >infrastructure was available, including LNSes, LAC implementations and >backend AAA infrastructure. > >doesn't this argument still hold for the hub and spoke case? > >the main short-coming of the RFC5571 as I see it is the lack of >provisioning... if we fixed that would 5571 be more palatable as a >solution?
At least from the thousands of campus networks, we don't use L2TP. So we need IPv4 over native IPv6 in this case. Yong _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
