Subject: [L2tpext] What do to about draft-ietf-l2tpext-sesinfo-04.txt

From: "W. Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:02:16 +0200

The "sesinfo" draft tries to make up for at least one deficiency in RFC2661, by
better defining the type of nas port at an LAC, and a method of sending this
information through multiple tunnel switches.

The draft has been around for years. From what I can tell, it has seen more
recent vendor and customer pressure for implementation, particularly for the Nas
Port Type, so the LNS operators may be able to track PPPoE vs. PPPoA DSL users.

There has been recent interest stirring concerning the collection of even more
connection information, and distributing it through the L2TP protocol.
draft-mistretta-l2tp-infomsg-00.txt is one such proposal. There is also an
intersection with the tunnel-switching draft here with regards to the general
issue of propagating, replacing or "stacking" AVP information as it traverses a
tunnel-switch. The sesinfo draft tackles this on its own, but there is certainly
merit in attempting to cover this in a general fashion.

As for sesinfo, I would like to hear opinions about publishing what we have now
in draft-ietf-l2tpext-sesinfo-04.txt vs. not. The pros are that it is something
that has been reviewed a number of times, past WG last call, has strong vendor
and customer support for the concept, some implementation, and quite a bit of
stagnation waiting to see what is going to happen next. Its lack of advance has
already contributed to duplicate work and hindrance of interoperability in this
area, at the very least for the Nas Port Type AVP.

One con is that there is still more interest in related work, and if we advance
this now, we might end up having to grandfather decisions already made in the
sesinfo draft, e.g. a more general tunnel-switching AVP classification method
may or may not fit with the sesinfo method.

Comments appreciated.

Thanks,

- Mark

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

---

From: "Mistretta, Tom" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:50:02 -0400

While sesinfo stands on it's own merits, I'd have to say that there still
are unresolved issues in reflecting nas-port and related information across
L2TP.  Some of this intersects with the atmext draft as well.  I think it
would be advantageous to pull as much of this together in a single document,
or if that cannot be accomplished easily, hold off on advancing the drafts
until we come up with a complete and consistent approach to the problems.

Tom