Subject: RE: Need for TSP? RE: Tunneling scenarios and mechanisms evaluation

From: "Soliman Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 02:54:41 -0500

> It was raised before, when I first sent a pointer to STEP.
 > 
 > I'm not 100% sure of the conclusion.  It seems like L2TP architecture
 > is relatively heavy-weight (UDP tunneling, PPP, L2TP service
 > architecture, etc.), except when the ISP and the client is already
 > using it for some other purpose.

=> That was one of my main reasons for asking. It's much faster
to use something that already exists, deployed, and in fact
used a lot today by ISPs and enterprise networks. 

Hesham

---

From: Florent Parent <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 14:53:57 -0500

--On Friday, March 12, 2004 02:54:41 -0500 Soliman Hesham 
<[email-masked]> wrote

> used a lot today by ISPs and enterprise networks.

Hesham,
As you are saying, if its already there (L2TP infrastructure), then this 
route can certainly make sense. But if an ISP doesn't have an L2TP 
infrastructure, deploying a tunnel broker solution is simpler.

To me, this is analogous to the BGP tunneling (6PE) stuff: if you already 
have MPLS-IPv4 backbone, BGP tunneling is attractive for IPv6 deployment to 
CE. Otherwise, doesn't make sense to deploy MPLS to get IPv6 to your 
customers.

Florent