Subject: Protocols other than PPP in L2TP

From: Srinivasan Balaji <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:00:15 -0400

Folks,
  I am very new to L2TP & this mailing list. I was wondering
if there is any provision to carry packets other than PPP in
the L2TP tunnels.  If there is no such provision, is there a
plan to make such a thing possible or is there sufficient
interest to carry other packets in the tunnel? I have not
seen a AVP about encapsulation yet and hence had
the doubt.
  Also, is there an uptodate archive of the mailing
list somewhere? I have seen one recommended by
the WG, but the last mail is dated Nov 11,'99 which
seems quite old (http://www.ipsec.org/email/l2tp).

TIA,
Balaji.
--
  Srinivasan Balaji
GlobeSpan, Inc. Voice : (732) 283-2770 xtn.303
mailto:[email-masked]
Web: http://www.globespan.net

---

From: "W. Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:21:36 -0400

> seen a AVP about encapsulation yet and hence had

L2TP is certainly extensible enough to carry other L2 protocols, however
it is currently beyond the WGs charter to pursue this.

> seems quite old (http://www.ipsec.org/email/l2tp).

This is being addressed now. Should have a new archive available
shortly. Apologies for the current gap.

- Mark

---

From: Srinivasan Balaji <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 17:04:21 -0400

Mark,
  I completely agree with the fact that L2TP is extensible
to carry other protocols other than PPP. Do you know
if anyone else is/was trying to pursue such extensions?
Which other WG would be working on such aspects?

    I think it is probably a matter a defining an AVP to
indicate that the incoming packets would be say RFC2684
encapsulated to get every thing that this RFC has defined.
This also has PPP so the default of PPP would also
get covered. What the WG can also do is that if this AVP is
not defined then PPP can be assumed by default for
backward compatibility.
    I would definitely like to hear from others also to see
if there is any interest in this.
    Mark, is it possible to know how many subscribers
are there for the mailing list (any mailing list for that
matter).

Thanks
Balaji.

---

From: "W. Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 18:11:18 -0400

> Which other WG would be working on such aspects?

None within the IETF. It was decided during the development of l2tp
(within pppext) that we would focus on PPP tunneling only. This,
however, is not the first time I have heard about doing otherwise. If
there is a *resounding* concensus in l2tpext that we should persue this,
we could look into adding it to the charter. 

> if there is any interest in this.

If there is potential for standards work here, yes, please speak up now.

> are there for the mailing list (any mailing list for that

http://www.greatcircle.com/majordomo/majordomo-faq.html