2.3.8 Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Extensions (l2tpext)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 50th IETF Meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It may now be out-of-date. Last Modified: 14-Mar-01

Chair(s):

W. Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>

Internet Area Director(s):

Thomas Narten <narten@raleigh.ibm.com>
Erik Nordmark <nordmark@eng.sun.com>

Internet Area Advisor:

Thomas Narten <narten@raleigh.ibm.com>

Mailing Lists:

General Discussion:l2tp@l2tp.net
To Subscribe: l2tp-request@l2tp.net
In Body: subscribe
Archive: http://www.l2tp.net

Description of Working Group:

The Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol (L2TP), defined in RFC2661 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2661.txt) is a protocol for tunneling PPP (RFC 1661) sessions over various network types. The group will provide a forum for discussion and development of extensions to L2TP, and actively advance the L2TP base protocol to Internet Standard.

The group will:
Define and advance standard MIB for L2TP management.
Produce documents describing how L2TP operates over link types other than IP (e.g., ATM, Frame Relay, etc.)
Identify and define specific parameters and modes of IPsec in order to aid interoperability when IPsec is used to secure L2TP traffic.
Define and review the definition of any additional IETF AVPs which are of interest to the group.

Goals and Milestones:

Sep 00

  

Submit L2TP MIB to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard

Done

  

Submit L2TP over Frame Relay to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard

Sep 00

  

Submit L2TP Header Compression to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard

Sep 00

  

Submit L2TP Session Info to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard

Sep 00

  

Submit L2TP ATM extensions to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard

Sep 00

  

Submit L2TP PPP Disconnect Information to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard

Oct 00

  

Submit L2TP Security to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard

Oct 00

  

Submit L2TP MIB to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard

Oct 00

  

Submit L2TP Link Information to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard

Jan 01

  

Submit L2TP (bis) to IESG for consideration as a Draft Standard

Internet-Drafts:
Request For Comments:

RFC

Status

Title

RFC3070

PS

Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) over Frame Relay

Current Meeting Report

L2TPEXT Minutes
Minutes courtesy of Ross Wheeler.

13:05 Charter Revision

Mark's presentation

Emphasized 2661 related documents in the near term

Asking for feedback

Questions/Comments:

None - Mark will pass it on the area directors

Tom: asked how many read the new charter (not many)
Mark: Will ask for last call for the charter on list

------------------------------------------------------------------
13:10 PWOT || PWE3

Danny McPherson
Presentation
Questions/Comments:

------------------------------------------------------------------
IPSRA

Mark
Mentioned that L2TP is in the requirements document

------------------------------------------------------------------
Nishit Vasavada - nishit@ambernetworks.com
Frame Relay Service Type for L2TP
draft-vasavada-l2tpext-fr-svctype-00.txt
10 minutes

Presentation

Questions/Comments:

Mark - less overloading AVPs. Sub address types are used with ISDN so maybe we should use another AVP.

Nishit - agreed.

Mark - no way to insure data integrity - why it isn't turning on the UDP checksum. You can say MUST. Discusses PPP, UDP with L2TP and use of checksums. L2TP specific checksum mentioned may be a requirement of the PWOT.

Andrew Malis - MUST UDP checksum - issues with the header MTU issues?
Fragmentation and reassembly - go to the FRF.5 with regards functionality (for ATM but still applicable). T1.618 should be changed ITU Q.922 Q.923.

Kevin - CIR mentioned? Nishit - next version. With MPLS why? Mark - something for PWOT.

------------------------------------------------------------------

David Black - Black_David@emc.com,
Danny McPherson - danny@ambernetworks.com
L2TP Differentiated Services Extension
draft-ietf-l2tpext-ds-03.txt
20 minutes

Danny

Presentation
Mentioned that Wei Luo did the update

Questions/Comments:

Q: PPP - multiple flows within a PPP session?

Danny: out of scope
David: problem with L2TP, sequence numbers, and flow based diffserv - be careful
Mark: do not turn on sequence numbers in this case
Mark: classification of flows and mapping - one method is pure mapping and doesn't use this. Text to talk about that case, another case, is this common knowledge?
Danny: welcome to the proposal
Mark: do you reflect?
Thomas: Possible to modify the existing PHBID? Is there a message to use?
Mark: SLI or create a new message type.
Mark: Why?
Thomas: Won't know until after authentication
Mark: should consider it.

None

David Black

Presentation on Diffserv
Questions/Comments:

------------------------------------------------------------------

Gilles Bourdon (gilles.bourdon@rd.francetelecom.fr)
L2TP Multicast Extension
draft-bourdon-l2tpmulticast-00.txt
10 minutes

Gilles

Presentation

Questions/Comments:
Mark: Experimental draft. If it's adopted then we could move standards track.
Danny: No patents?
G: No.
Thomas: How many people in a group?
G: Not setup yet. 5000 users for one LAC.
Dave Allen: source question - do I receive a copy as a source?
G: yes, designed just for downstream data
Mark: security issues: inject an MSI?

------------------------------------------------------------------
L2TP Mib
Evan Caves

Presentation
Doesn't support header compression, alt. payloads.

Questions/Comments:

Glen: Go ahead and become an RFC. Changing the structure of the existing MIB, change it to two new ones.

------------------------------------------------------------------
W. Mark Townsley - townsley@cisco.com
L2TPEXT Milestones update and review
L2TPEXT Charter Revision
Remaining time

Slides

Agenda
Frame Relay Service Type for L2TP
L2TP Multicast Extension