Subject: [Softwires] TTM Thoughts

From: "Bill Storer \(bstorer\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:11:44 -0800

I think we need to address Softwires TTM from two angles.

First, TTM from the standards point of view.  Are we ready with the
necessary RFCs to support Softwires?  

The answer here for L2TP is a yes.  

RFC 2661 - L2TP (RFC August 1999)
RFC 3371 - L2TP MIB (RFC August 2002)
RFC 2867 - RADIUS Accounting Modifications for Tunnels (RFC June 2000)
RFC 3193 - Securing L2TP using Ipsec (RFC November 2001)
RFC 3948 - UDP Encapsulation of IPsec ESP Packets (RFC January 2005)
draft-ietf-pwe3-fragmentation - PWE3 Fragmentation and Reassembly
(currently on round 10 of the draft)

In addition, the L2TP solution makes use of standard building blocks
such as DHCPv6 and PPP, which are very well defined.  

Second, is practical TTM.

IPv6 traffic today is minute compared with IPv4.  Government mandates
will produce more traffic, but that's in the future.  I'm thinking that
SP implementation in the 2007 time frame would be reasonable for a
practical TTM.  From an L2TP point of view this is no problem.  L2TP is
already widely deployed in the major service providers.  Built in "out
of the box" windows clients for L2TP are currently in beta test and will
be available this year.  GPL code for L2TP is widely available today.
It has already been used to implement softwires solutions in CPEs and
Windows.  In addition, it provides the basis for L2TP clients on a wide
variety of platforms.  

Bill

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:17:04 -0600

Just a comment here. I think has been said already in a previous, but having
all the pieces there doesn't means that is working in the reality according
to the softwires specs. I'm not saying is not possible, on the contrary,
having a clear view of that will help this WG to fix what is required or put
the pressure in other WG which may be tasked with any specific issue.

By the way, 12% of the traffic being IPv6 already (when you run dual stack
web servers) is already a lot. I don't think that's a factor to determine
the practical TTM, because if that's the case, we are already late :-(

However, I agree from a somehow slightly subjective point of view, early
2007 is a good target for me. The point here is then that I will not discard
other possible protocols which in the Interim meeting where considered
having a lower scoring than L2TP because TTM ...

Regards,
Jordi

> De: "Bill Storer (bstorer)" <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:11:44 -0800
> Para: <[email-masked]>
> Conversación: TTM Thoughts
> Asunto: [Softwires] TTM Thoughts
> 

**********************************************
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.

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:35:31 +0000

> the practical TTM, because if that's the case, we are already late :-(

Is that 12% for access to your IPv6 information site?  May be biased...

Tim

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:48:38 -0600

Of course not, I explained this several times, and provided stats. I'm
talking about average of several sites hosted with dual stack, not related
to IPv6, neither to Internet at all.

You can also see that the number of users of 6to4 is growing very fast.
There is also a nice document about that.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:35:31 +0000
> Para: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: [Softwires] TTM Thoughts
>