Re: IP Layer 2 Transport over L2TPv3

Prasad,

Thanks. Please see a couple of comments inline.

List,

Any further comments on the request to accept this draft as a working
group document?


Circa 9/17/2005 5:50 AM, Prasad Yadati said the following:
> Good one Carlos.
> How about just specifying it as "IP transport over L2TPv3".
> 

Thanks.

The "IP Layer 2" was added there for 2 reasons:
1. To somehow differentiate raw-IP from framed-IP being transported over
   L2TPv3 while trying to reference the NSP function that interfaces the
   L2 AC with the IP PW Termination.
2. Symmetry/parity name with the already defined PW Type for MPLS PWE3.

"IP transport" may possibly be too generic for the procedures defined.

> Wondering whether we can have a generic "Layer 3 transport over L2TPv3"
> and specify transport of all layer 3 protocols (IP, IPX,....) in it
> including IP.

Do you mean multiple L3 protocols at the same time over the session? I'd
think we can use existing L2 transports to accomplish that. OTOH, IP as
L3 stands out in the applications of an "IP L2" session.

Thanks !

--Carlos.

> 
> Regards
> Prasad
> 
> Carlos Pignataro wrote:
> 
>> Hi All,
>>
>> We submitted the following `IP Layer 2 Transport over L2TPv3' draft:
>> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i-d-announce/current/msg06623.html
>> that details the tunneling of IP datagrams directly over an L2TPv3
>> session, and defines the `CE IP Address AVP' as well.
>>
>> We would like it to become an l2tpext working group document, and seek
>> review, feedback and comments from the WG.
>> So we ask here for the draft to be accepted as work item for the group.
>> Your feedback will be most appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
> 

-- 
--Carlos.
Escalation RTP - cisco Systems