Subject: RE: IPv6 Benchmarking Draft - Please provide feedback

From: "Chip Popoviciu \(cpopovic\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 18:33:09 -0400

Fred,

I totally agree with this approach which would address a need for this
type of benchmarking for both IPv4 and IPv6 within a common framework,
specific to tunneling solutions. We will bring this suggestion to BMWG
in Montreal.

Best Regards,
Chip

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Fred Baker (fred)
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 6:19 PM
To: Daniel Roesen
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPv6 Benchmarking Draft - Please provide feedback

maybe the right answer is to go back to the benchmarking folks and ask
them for a way of benchmarking tunneling solutions. Such a solution
could be targeted at IPSEC tunnel mode in IPv4 and IPv6, GRE in IPv4 and
IPv6, MPLS, L2TP, ...

On Jun 12, 2006, at 12:12 PM, Daniel Roesen wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 02:36:36AM -0400, Chip Popoviciu (cpopovic)
> wrote:
>> Note that in keeping with the spirit of RFC 2544, no benchmarking 
>> recommendations are made for tunneling mechanisms, the focus 
>> remaining on native forwarding.
>
> I feel that performance of the various tunnelling mechanisms relating 
> to IPv6 (this includes GRE!) is a very important factor for years to 
> come, given that many folks will need to use them in the transition 
> phase.
>
>
> Regards,
> Daniel
>
> --
> CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [email-masked] -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0