Subject: [L2tpext] One comment on draft-ietf-l2tpext-v92-moh-00.txt

From: "W. Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:26:02 +0200

Ignacio,

Good piece of work, Ignacio. I have one minor nit. In the draft you define the
new MDMST message, and refer to it as a "Command" throughout the doc. I think
the more conventional nomenclature would be to simply refer to it as a "Control
Message." Or, am I missing something here?

I have no other issues, and if there are no other comments from the list we can
go to last call.

Thanks,

- Mark

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

---

From: Kiran Brahmandam <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:29:45 -0700

Hi:

Any input regarding this issue are appreciated.
Distibuted LNS - A customer will be using 2 LNS's should be able to have their
LNS's
communicate with each other such that if the tunnel exist
with a dial-in session on one LNS, the other LNS should not dial out, meaing the
other
LNS should not establish a tunnel.

This is what we are thinking to do and propose it as an extension to L2TP.

LNS-1 and LNS-2 will know that they are a part of a DISTRIBUTED LNS GROUP. (By some
configuration).
Whenever one of the LNS's establish a tunnel to a LAC (by an incoming call), say
LNS-1 first establishes a TUNNEL with LAC-1,
then LNS-1 will communicate that information with LNS-2  saying that it has a
TUNNEL to LAC-1.
This information can be sent in an new AVP which we will define.
The L2TP header will have the tunnelId and sessionId as 0.

LNS-2 which recevies the l2tp packet, checks for this NEW AVP and  stores that
information in its local database.
When ever a user comes on  LNS-2 (dialout) and it needs to establish  a tunnel with
LAC-1,
it checks to see if it is a part of a DISTRIBUTED LNS GROUP
If so checks its local database to see if there is already
some LNS-X, which has a TUNNEL established to the LAC-1, then LNS-2 will forward
the packets to LNS-X.
Now LNS-X will now establish a session under its TUNNEL.

When ever a tunnel is deleted, then that LNS will send out a message to the member
of the
DISTRIBUTED LNS GROUP, saying that its tunnel is now gone.

Can you let me know, if we do something like this, will we be voilating the L2TP
protocol.

Thanks
Kiran