Subject: [L2tpext] Draft Minutes from 53rd IETF

From: "W. Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 17:31:24 +0200

Please send any comments to the list. Thanks.

Notes taken by Stewart Bryant and Mike Horn, consolidated by Mark Townsley.

Intro - no comments from floor

draft-ietf-l2tpext-sesinfo-04.txt
plan to issue last call

Ron da Silva
L2TP Active Discovery
Few changes
Editorial update then request last call
No response from floor

M. Townsley - L2TP Extension for Frame Relay PW
Reviewed initial draft v00, requested feedback on the mailing list.
Comments: Discussions focused on fragmentation issues 
Andy Malis - use FRF-12 in FR endpoint
George Wilkie - Fragmantation - best to do it on end systems,
but need to be configured
Andy - use end-end frag on CE rather than UNI-NNI

Mark Townsley
L2TPv3 update
A number of clarifications made
Request publish update to sister PPP doc and 
move to last call shortly after this meeting

Mitsuru Higashiyama - 
Ethernet over BCP over L2TP vs Ethernet over PWE3
PWE3 WG does not cover LAN to LAN compulsary tunnel
LAN to LAN voluntary tunnel competes with PWE3
Asked for opinion on whether he should keep 
comp & vol and let vol & Ethernet over PWE3 co-exist.

Comments: Discussion on whether there is enough 
WG interest to continue working on this draft unknown - The draft 
is potentially interesting for the DSL and ISDN use cases

Comment has use for DSL and ISL apps, needs
discussion on list

Tmima Koren 
L2TP HC

Thomas Narten: Alloc of IP protocol number a problem.
IESG will push back strongly in general, and because 
one already issued for L2TP.

Mark: Could use L2TPv3 at cost of extra 4 bytes,
otherwise identify PID for session in setup
negotiation. This is NAT unfriendly.

Thomas: Discomfort at neg PIDs on fly - firewall
issue will restrict use. Existing protocols do
not do this - doubts

Mark: use l2tpv3 would be a great approach but need
input if this will put intended apps over the edge

Tmima - not a lot of difference but extra overhead
a problem of competing against other technologies
(ATM I think). Can we negotiate away L2TP session id

Mark: Yes, but could not support any demux

Stewart/Mark that means that HC must use UDP
control channel because loose sesson ID.

Will ask Andy to spin new version with these comments.

_______________________________________________
L2tpext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext