[64618] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: [arin-announce] IPv4 Address Space (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Maxwell)
Wed Oct 29 10:35:31 2003
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:10:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@martin.fl.us>
To: "Kuhtz, Christian" <christian.kuhtz@BellSouth.com>
Cc: Avleen Vig <lists-nanog@silverwraith.com>,
Simon Lockhart <simon.lockhart@bbc.co.uk>,
Dave Howe <DaveHowe@gmx.co.uk>, "Email List: nanog" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <DDA33D0260634241B611579903A1741608A9B724@01al10015010045.ad.bl>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Kuhtz, Christian wrote:
> Seems several commercial clients (such as Cisco's VPN client) offer
> workaround for that (tunneling IPSEC in a TCP session). Works great.
I'm sure I could also setup a PPPoEmail shim that would bypass most of
these problems..
Who needs routers with PBR when you have sendmail with m4 configuration!
The fact that something can be worked around with enough footwork really
doesn't make okay.
Consider the congestion related behavior of TCP inside TCP.
Consider the additional perpacket overhead of TCP encap, and the effect of
the additional fragmentation that will happen since few networks will pass
datagrams over 1500 bytes.
If networks operators had demanded IPv6 in the past far more products
today would be enabled and the 'upgrades are expensive' argument would be
moot. Simply passing the buck to the customer is not a globally wise
solution.
