Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-l2tpext-failover-05.txt

Carlos,

I'll skip the comments we agree upon. One quick comment below:

> This is the scenario I meant: LCCE receives an SCCRQ containing the
> Tunnel Recovery AVP. That means that the remote LCCE is establishing a
> recovery tunnel. The Recover Tunnel Id and Recover Remote Tunnel Id in
> the AVP identify an old tunnel for which the remote LCCE had not
> previously included Failover Capability AVP upon establishment.
> Shouldn't the recovery tunnel be torn down in that case?
Upon receiving SCCRQ with Tunnel Recovery AVP in a recovery tunnel, an endpoint
should never tear down the old tunnel. Because unless the recovery tunnel is
fully established the authentication process isn't really complete. Therefore,
even if an endpoint didn't send Failover Capability AVP in the old tunnel, to
teardown the tunnel Recovery Tunnel must be established. Given that we must
establish the recovery tunnel even if an endpoing doesn't support failover I'd
suggest an endpoing indicates that it supports failover and upon establishment
of recovery tunnel, it tears down the old tunnel.

thanks,
-- vipin
















__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com