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

Circa 9/2/2005 4:31 AM, Vipin Jain said the following:
> 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.

Vipin,

I suspect part of the confusion may come from interpreting the following
text:
<t>
It MUST terminate the tunnel if:
         - Non failed endpoint did not indicate it was failover capable.
</t>
Where it says `MUST terminate the tunnel', is it referring to the old
tunnel or the recovery tunnel that must be terminated?

Thanks,

--Carlos.

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

-- 
--Carlos.
Escalation RTP - cisco Systems