Re: Comments on draft-ietf-l2tpext-tunnel-switching-03.txt
Vipin Jain <vipinietf <at> yahoo.com>
2002-10-01 17:16:56 GMT
Thanks for the comments Mark. My response inline..
I snipped out plenty of text that you didn't comment on.
> The figure above presents a typical tunnel switching scenario for
> incoming calls. The user opens a layer2 (for example PPP) session
> WMT Are we going to mayke this RFC2661-specific or not? If so, I think we can
> ahead and call this a "PPP" session vs. a "layer2" session. If we are going
> make it L2TPv3 based, we probably need more nomenclature changes than just
> What we have here seems sort of in-between.
Yes, we'd like it to be generic because we think there is applicability
beyond PPP; Agree that it needs more nomenclature change (borrow most
of them from L2TPv3). It would allow tunnel switching to work with
L2TPv2 as well.
> Tunnel switching enables higher administrative control on how layer2
> sessions are engineered in L2TP deployments.
> WMT "higher administrative control," "layer2 sessions are engineered" - this
> a little broad and encompassing. I think we should come down to earth a bit
sure, how about:
"Tunnel switching enables redirection of layer2 sessions based on
administrative policies as described below". 'below' would cover
the same text.