Subject: comments on draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:46:59 -0400

Hi Jose,

After reading your draft,
"Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows (TCMTF)"
I have a few comments to share, below.  There are some
interesting possibilities here as IPv6 adoption increases.

regards,
Al

General:

As you mention clearly, there must be certain traffic conditions
present for TCMTF use to pay-off in BW or pkt/sec savings.
I agree with most of your scenarios, and the Internet-Cafe'
and Satellite cases in particular.

It might be more efficient from an operational perspective
if sufficient parallel flows could be *discovered* automatically,
and the funneled into the TCMTF.  The Tunnel and Mux layers might
be pre-established and "wait" for flows to compress, using minimal
keep-alive traffic. This is most likely a function added to an
existing device in the network if not at the real-time end-points
(as discussed in section 2.1).

Although I appreciate your desire for stack-element flexibility
((Figure 2), choice is the enemy of inter-operability. I suggest
to identify a default profile of layers (e.g., ECRTP, PPP, & L2TP),
which all compliant implementations would need to support.

Section 2.4:
L2TP tunnels should be used
s/should/SHOULD/