Subject: RE: [L2tpext] Application Identifier AVP

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:07:05 +0300

Mistretta, Tom writes:

 > Well at least in the PPP case, you can view such behavior as being driven by
 > the protocol being tunneled by L2TP as opposed to L2TP itself.  Maybe there
 > is not as clear an analogy for the PWE applications?

may be so in the ppp case, but not, for example, in the vpn case.

 > If L2TP were to have such an AVP, would the ID itself be undefined (i.e.,
 > left to implementations to define and use)?

each RFC that describes an application that uses the AI AVP, would
define the value of the Application Identifer for that particular application.
the actual value, of course, would be assigned by IANA.

-- juha

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:07:05 +0300

-- juha

---

From: "Mistretta, Tom" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 09:01:53 -0400

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 1:42 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [L2tpext] Application Identifier AVP

as i mentioned in yokohama, i believe there is a need for an Application
Identifier AVP for L2TPv3.  the AI AVP would tell to the receiver of the
L2TP session setup, for which application this session is intended for
and thus also what information and how the possible End Identifier AVP
carries.

if we don't have AI AVP, then each application needs to invent it own
AVPs in order to be able to tell their sessions apart from sessions of
other applications.

for example, there are many different VPN models that require different
actions at the receiver of the L2TP session setup.  without the AI AVP,
each of them would need to invent their own VPN ID AVP, even if its
contents would be exactly the same.  with the AI AVP, the End Identifier
AVP could carry the VPN ID.

comments?

-- juha