Subject: PPPEXT Minutes--Oslo

From: "Karl Fox" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 15:25:10 -0400

PPP Extensions Working Group Minutes

45th IETF-Oslo, Norway

Wednesday, July 14, 1999, 1530-1730 

Chair: Karl Fox [email-masked]
Reported by Matt Holdrege [email-masked]

Discussion of PPPEXT Standards Track Document Status 
Karl Fox <[email-masked]> 

Karl explained the rules for moving documents along the standards track.  
Then we reviewed each protocol.

To PS 
	L2TP
	L2TP MIB
	AODI

To DS
	IPCP
	BCP
	CCP
	ECP
	PPP over ISDN
	BACP
	LCP Internationalization
	LCP Extensions
	X.25
	Frame Relay
	AAL5
	Appletalk CP

To STD
	CHAP
	MP
	LQM

To HISTORIC
	DNCP
	SNA
	Reliable Mode
	XNS

First phase is taking L2TP MIB and AODI to proposed standard. Second phase 
is taking IPCP, IPXCP, BCP, VJ, CCP, ISDN, X.25 and BACP to Draft Standard. 
CHAP and MP and LQM to full standard.

SDP will be punted to the IPSEC working group.

Future Directions of L2TP 
draft-ietf-pppext-l2tp-16.txt 
Mark Townsley <[email-masked]> 

Draft 16 was approved as a proposed standard but is still in the editors 
queue. Clerical errors are still being accepted. The RFC number should be 
published in about a month.

For promotion to draft standard, we must prove multiple interoperable 
implementations. We can also identify items that might need to be changed or 
added.

It was noted that it is not in anyone's best interest that we rush to draft 
standard status. Realistically, if there are changes, it will take a year to 
complete testing before we move to draft standard.

Should we have a separate UDP port for control and data channels? It would 
require a new port registered with IANA. All sessions within a tunnel would 
use the same ports. Alternatively, we could use ADC which is more complex, 
but individual sessions within a tunnel may use different ports.

Flow control issues: Limiting number of packet in transit to help with 
statefull protocols.

Congestion Management BOF draft-balakrishnan-cm-00.txt may be useful for the 
L2TP control channel, but is not advisable for the data channel.

What to do if an AVP that is defined for one message is received in another? 
The same AVP may have a different meaning in two different messages. Thus the 
M-bit rules apply. If you want to do this, an extensions draft must be 
written and approved as if it were a brand new AVP.

PPP over Simple Data Link (SDL) using raw lightwave channels with ATM-like 
framing 
draft-ietf-pppext-sdl-pol-00.txt 
James Carlson <[email-masked]> 
Enrique Hernandez-Valencia <[email-masked]> 
Nevin Jones <[email-masked]> 

Concerns were expressed about the CRC since it wasn't specified in the 
draft. It was explained that the existing SDL draft made it clear.

It was expressed that existing PPP over SONET was more efficient than SDL at 
the existing Internet packet size samples. Also that that SDL was addressing 
an error scenario that doesn't impact users.

Another concern was expressed about the lightwave transport and that this 
draft doesn't address it.

We could not determine the status of this document here and that discussion 
will move to the list.

Mobile PPP 
draft-ietf-pppext-mppp-00.txt 
M. Chuah <[email-masked]> 

This draft was presented last meeting, but its purpose wasn't explained 
well. The draft was changed in respect to L2TP flow control and is dependent 
on future changes to L2TP flow control.

L2TP works fine in a mobile network EXCEPT when moving from one Radio node 
to another. This draft adds a new AVP to L2TP to enable this function. This 
Mobile AVP is an option for LNS's that wish to support this feature. 

If user auth is required by an operator upon handoff, this new draft 
supports it. This draft is also consistent with Mobile IP as used in 
wireless networks.

It was pointed out that ACCM should be in the SLI rather than the SRRQ. The 
author will consider that change.

L2TP MIB 
draft-ietf-pppext-l2tp-mib-04.txt 
Evan Caves <[email-masked]> 

The big change in this draft is about payload flow control being removed. 
There will be another draft to make a few minor corrections.

The IP tunnel MIB will be moving to proposed standard soon which is good 
since the L2TP MIB is an extension of this draft.

L2TP ATM Access Network Extensions 
draft-ietf-pppext-l2tp-atmext-01.txt 
Yves T'Joens <[email-masked]> 

Draft 01 adds a few new extensions and will be updated now that L2TP has 
been approved and is stable.

Always On Dynamic ISDN (AODI) 
draft-ietf-pppext-aodi-01.txt 
Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]> 
[5 minutes]

Not many updates; mostly small issues.  New draft went to the list.  One 
comment: PPP over X.25 never included the D-channel consideration.  Trying 
to move this forward quickly.

Providing QoS in Multilink PPP 
M. Chuah <[email-masked]> 
Enrique Hernandez-Valencia <[email-masked]> 

MCML only specifies how to interleave packets on multiple links. But how to 
schedule interleaving events. Did not mention how to map PPP QoS to 
different links carrying traffic with varying characteristics. 

PPP over Virtually Concatenated SONET/SDH Low and High Order Channels 
Nevin Jones <[email-masked]> 

The draft will be submitted in the near future. The authors wish to 
communicate to the transport standards bodies that the IETF sees this as 
desirable so that they can see the need for adding support for combining 
lower and higher order channels in their specifications. 

Irfan Ali [email-masked] presented draft-pazhyannur-avt-pppmux-00.txt

It was noted that AAL2 muxing went through the same issues and it found a 
lot of complexity. But this draft tries to avoid those problems with a very 
simple approach.

Karl Fox <[email-masked]>
Key fingerprint = 5B15 7260 D55E D680 0B93  4953 8A3B AB0E C05D 77A3

---

From: Lee Vishloff <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 14:39:34 -0700

Karl,

I may have not been clear in my statements on SDL at the meeting, or they
may have been recorded incorrectly.  What I intended to say was that SDL
encapsulation vs HDLC encapsulation was not favourable to SDL when we used
the typical Internet packet length distribution.  While I think the dropping
of SONET is not desirable, it is a separate issue from the encapsulation
used (SDL or HDLC).

Regards,  - Lee

Lee Vishloff,
Manager Product Research,
PMC-Sierra, Inc.,
105-8555 Baxter Place,
Burnaby, B.C.
V5A 4V7
(604) 415-6132
Fax:  (604) 415-6205

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Karl Fox [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	July 26, 1999 12:25 PM
> To:	[email-masked]
> Cc:	[email-masked]
> Subject:	PPPEXT Minutes--Oslo
>

---

From: "Karl Fox" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:41:32 -0400

Thank you for the clarification.  I apologize for the error.

Karl

---

From: Patrick Klos <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:34:04 -0400

>--7687_53c-26db_1614-18a8_62c4
>Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name=mpqos.ppt
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
>Content-MD5: NRdyoBX5I+0lr08w82d8kg==
>Content-Description: mpqos.ppt
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=mpqos.ppt
>
>0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFAAAAAgAAAAAA
>AAAAEAAABgEAAAEAAAD+////AAAAAAMAAAAEAAAABQAAAAEAAAAIAQAA////////////////
>////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>	:	:	:
>	:	:	:
>	:	:	:

Could we please limit the size of posts to the mailing list to something
reasonable (like < 100K or smaller), and use URLs to point to larger files 
that may be of interest to the group??
============================================================================
    Patrick Klos                           Email: [email-masked]
    Klos Technologies, Inc.                Web:   http://www.klos.com/
============================================================================

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:07:32 -0400

------------- Begin Forwarded Message -------------

>From [email-masked] Tue Jul 27 08:06:44 1999
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 08:06:39 -0400
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: PPPEXT Minutes--Oslo
Cc: [email-masked]
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Status: $$$$
X-UID: 0000002292

Karl,
sorry for the late reply. I wasn't in yesterday.
2 corrections:
a) Mobile PPP draft -
we mentioned that pending on working group interest, we
either pursue this as standard track document or publish it as
informational RFC.

The first paragraph should be modified as

This draft was presented last meeting, however, based on comments
heard from some individuals, the purpose wasn't explained well.
The draft originally proposed 3 methods to provide mobile feature to L2TP.
The draft was revised so that it now only has 2 methods for the 3rd method
assumes that l2tp data flow control is mandatory. We will write a separate
draft describing how to use a modified l2tp data flow control with method 3.

b) Providing QoS in multilink PPP
Again, we wish to pursue this as a standard track document if there
is sufficient interest. Otherwise, we will publish it again as informational
RFC.

I suggest the following text.

MCML only provides an identifier for specifying QoS class of
different PPP fragments. It doesn't specify how to interleave packets
on multiple links, how to schedule interleaving events. It also does not
mention how to map PPP QoS classes into different links carrying traffic
with varying performance characteristics. This proposal defines new
LCP options to fill the holes.

Attached are the vgs for the 2 presentations.

Regds,
Mooi Choo
------------- End Forwarded Message -------------