[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [v6tc] Re: Tunneling and Transition Drafts
I agree strongly with Pekka. I still see no strong argument for a vtc
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On
> Behalf Of Pekka Savola
> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 4:02 AM
> To: Jerome Durand
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [v6tc] Re: Tunneling and Transition Drafts
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Jerome Durand wrote:
> >>> Opinions?
> > I am not sure I share the view that the BOF was a
> non-event. There was an
> > agreement from a *large majority* of people in the room to
> say that the WG
> > should take TSP that fulfills all requirements presented,
> and make it a
> > standard. Now I guess it's time to move on in that direction.
> It will be interesting to see BoF minutes, because I didn't see large
> majority. For what it's worth, my recollection was:
> I saw less than about 5-10 people supporting TSP.
> I saw less than about 5-10 people supporting doing something new.
> I saw less than about 5-10 people being comfortable with existing
> mechanisms (like L2TP).
> Bottom line is that if we don't need to care about the RTT and
> overhead concerns at all, I can't clearly see real benefits for TSP
> instead of just using L2TP.
> Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> v6tc mailing list