Re: [RRG] Tunnel fragmentation/reassembly for RRG map-and-encaps architectures

["Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>]

With regard to Mobile-IP, it is not being used much as originally
envisioned.  However, it is beign used quite heavily by a number of
technologies with mobility needs.

While there are provider based VPNs, some (maybe even many) of which use
MPLS, there are also lots of CE based VPNs which use other technologies
(IPSec for one example, but there are many others.)
It has been years since I had to deploy those, so I do not know what
hacks people are using to make the applications work.  But most
customers do assume that the apps work.  And they seem to be correct.

Yours,
Joel

Tony Li wrote:
> 
>> Firstly, while there are many concerns about the way Mobile-IP works,
>> folks don't complain about applications not working over MIP, even MIPv4
>> (which requires tunnels.)
> 
> 
> Can I ask, how broadly are people using MIP?  I don't know of anyone
> using it today.
> 
> 
>> Secondly, there are a lot of VPNs.  Many of them provided by
>> middleboxes.  They seem to use tunnels exactly the way the proposals on
>> the table do.  And they seem to work.  With a wide range of applications.
>> Is there some other dimension here that explains the mismatch?
> 
> 
> How many of those VPNs are based on MPLS?
> 
> I think I can tell you without violating too many corporate secrets that
> anytime Cisco sees a customer deploying an L3 tunneling solution that
> the MTU is an issue, usually resolved by a manual workaround.
> 
> Tony
> 

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg