RE: Q: is framing-capabilities value=0 legal

Ah, Thanks!

	I have been inclined toward accepting the tunnel. But L2TP is
not my normal gig and I just wanted to 'ask the list' to get a sence of
the matter from other folks.

---
Ricky Charlet
W: 408.754.1733
[email protected]
--- _
   ( )  ASCII ribbon campaign 
    X    - against HTML email
   / \                   

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ignacio Goyret [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 10:45 AM
> To: Ricky Charlet
> Cc: Ignacio Goyret; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [L2tpext] Q: is framing-capabilities value=0 legal
> 
> At 09:22 11/1/2005 -0800, Ricky Charlet wrote:
> >	I hope I paraphrase your response correctly to say that 
> Fr-cap=0 is 
> >allowable and its meaning is "I will not initiate", and it 
> may even be 
> >common from an LNS.
> >
> >
> >	But even if I see your meaning correctly, that still 
> does not help me 
> >in my situation. I'm the LNS, and I am receiving Fr-Cap=0 
> from the LAC. 
> >The LAC I am dealing with has an obvious bug in that it's Fr-Cap 
> >setting is configurable but it ignores the configuration and always 
> >sends 0. Yet still, this is a popular LAC and I want to interoperate 
> >with it.
> >
> >	From my LNS's perspective... should I be generous in 
> what I accept, or 
> >is there a reason I must abort the connection?
> 
> 
> The question you have to ask yourself is what do you gain by 
> being picky on something inconsequential.
> 
> Remember that L2TP (even 2661) is symmetrical: the role of 
> LNS or LAC is a per-call role, not a per-tunnel role. By 
> sending framing capabilities == 0, the L2TP peer is promising 
> that it won't send an OCRQ. From your point of view, why is 
> that a problem to you?
> 
> If the remote's promise of never send an OCRQ is not a 
> problem to you (and, if your product is only an LNS, it 
> shouldn't be), ask yourself why reject the tunnel?
> 
> By all means, I strongly suggest that you should follow Jon 
> Postel's principle of robustness (RFC793, section 2.10): be 
> conservative in what you send and liberal in what you accept 
> from others.
> 
> Unless something really affects your functionality, what's 
> the harm in accepting it?
> 
>