headers
Carlos Pignataro | 1 Aug 2005 18:49
Picon
Favicon

Re: WG status update

Hi Ron,

Circa 7/31/2005 12:27 PM, da Silva, Ronald said the following:
> All,
> 
> First of all, sorry for the silence over the last few weeks.
> Unfortunately neither Ignacio nor I were able to give the WG the
> attention it needed and thus were negligent in responding to various
> requests and activities herein.  Let this summary begin to get us back
> on track.  I am listing the various documents that I am aware of, the
> current status (as far as I can tell) and the next steps for each of
> these items.  Please review and let me know if I am missing anything on
> the list or have reported something inaccurately.
> 
> draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-hdlc-06.txt - waiting on WG chair summary; just
> sent to AD's
> draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-fr-06.txt - waiting on WG chair summary; just
> sent to AD's
> draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-atm-03.txt - waiting on WG chair summary; just
> sent to AD's

Thanks for sending the summary. Another update for the WG is that the
numbers for the above have been assigned by the IANA in
http://www.iana.org/assignments/l2tp-parameters

> 
> draft-ietf-l2tpext-failover-05.txt - ID exists; need WG LC; will send
> shortly (since I don't think it was ever sent!)
> draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2vpn-05.txt - looks like there was a WG LC for v.02
> of this but not for v.05; need WG LC; will send shortly
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sasha Vainshtein | 3 Aug 2005 12:33
Favicon

Degree of resolution of the cause of failures in the TDM PW Setup : LDP vs. L2TPv3

Hi all,
Thisis a reminder that the current levels of resolution wrt the cause 
of failure to setup TDM PWs is different in the following drafts:

- draft-ietf-pwe3-tdm-control-protocol-extensi-00.txt
- draft-ietf-l2tpext-draft-ieft-l2tpext-tdm-01.txt

The former provides minimal degree of resolution by aggregating
most failure causes under the "CEP/TDM mis-configuration" LDP Status
code umbrella, while the latter provides 3 dedicated error codes
for specific failure causes.

I have brought this issue up during the PWE3 WG session in Paris today,
I I would appreciate some feedback from both WGs.

Regards,
                         Sasha
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
da Silva, Ronald | 3 Aug 2005 13:21

Re: WG status update

> > PPPoL2TPv3 milestone - Not sure what this was supposed to 
> > be...is this yours Carlos?
> 
> Yes, with the OK of the chairs, we'd like update and revive this
> document as editors.

Please do and send the updated document along.

thanks!
-ron
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Stewart Bryant | 4 Aug 2005 07:58
Picon
Favicon

PWE3 VCCV breakout meeting

These are the minutes of the PWE3 VCCV breakout meeting
that took place at lunch time yesterday.

[Note to PWE3 - these mins now contain the corrections
posted overnight]

There were a number of other issues that were raised
at these meeting that were out of scope. Those
issues should be raised on the PWE3 list.

- Stewart

VCCV over IP/RTP Breakout Mtg 3 Aug 2005  <at>  1240
===============================================

Present:

Stewart Bryant (Chair)
Bill Stor
Luca martini
Maria Alice
Matthew Bocci
Ron Cohen
Sasha Vainshtein
Scot Wainner
Skip Booth (By Phone)
Tim Frost
Tom Nadeau
Yaakov Stein
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Carlos Pignataro | 10 Aug 2005 20:20
Picon
Favicon

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


Please find some comments on draft-ietf-l2tpext-tunnel-switching-05.txt.
I hope they are useful and clear:

2. L2TPv2 to L2TPv3 switch

***CP: It would appear that there could be more to the data
***CP: encapsulation adaptation in the L2TP version switch case.
***CP: Specifically in terms of dataplane sequencing. As an example,
***CP: L2TPv3 could use Data Sequencing AVP with a value of 1 (Only
***CP: non-IP data packets require sequencing). Such cases should
***CP: probably be considered in this section.

3. AVP Behavior

   - DROPPED AVP: AVP is dropped if it was present in the incoming
   message. All the L2TPv3 only AVPs are dropped when switched onto
   L2TPv2 tunnel.

***CP: It seems not all L2TPv3-specific AVPs are dropped. Specifically,
***CP: Tx|Rx Connect Speed must be regenerated and "translated" (i.e.,
***CP: change the AVP Type) if there is a version switch as specified
***CP: already (i.e., 74 <-> 24 and 75 <-> 38)

3.1. IETF Vendor AVPs

   Framing Capabilities (SCCRQ, SCCRP) - MUST be REGENERATED.

   Bearer Capabilities (SCCRQ, SCCRP) - MUST be either REGENERATED or
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Carlos Pignataro | 14 Aug 2005 21:07
Picon
Favicon

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

This looks like a very good document to me, please find a couple of
comments/queries:

1.
      2.2.1 Recovery tunnel establishment

         corresponding old tunnel.  An endpoint SHOULD not send any
         control message on this tunnel, other than the messages to
         establish and tear down the tunnel itself.

***CP: I know this was updated with the "and tear down" to clarify about
***CP: StopCCN. Maybe just a nit, I wonder however if "establish,
***CP: keepalive and tear down" is more complete to include ZLB as well.
***CP: Or possibly simpler enumerate the allowed control messages: SCCRQ,
***CP: SCCRP, SCCCN, StopCCN, ZLB Ack and Explicit-Ack (for L2TPv3
***CP: only).

2.
         Tunnel Recovery AVP for L2TPv3 tunnels:
[snip]
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                        Recover Tunnel Id                      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     Recover Remote Tunnel Id                  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

***CP: s/Tunnel Id/Control Connection ID/
***CP: Same clarification between tunnel id and control connection id in
***CP: the following 2 or 3 para (only mentions tunnel id).
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Mark Townsley | 22 Aug 2005 19:47
Picon
Favicon

softwires mailing list


PWE3,

There was a BoF in Paris, titled "lrw" (the second in a series of 
names). The first BoF was in Minneapolis, titled "V6tc." The latest, 
greatest, name is "softwire" though this may change as well.

The charter is still being hammered out, but one goal of this WG if it 
is formed is to define a tunneling protocol to be used for IPv6 networks 
to reach one another over IPv4 and vice versa. Due to some 
administrative problems, the list didn't exist until this past weekend.

I'm not sure how many people are all that interested in IPv6/IPv4 
transition issues here. However, some of the tunneling-specific issues 
may overlap. As such, those who have time and energy for constructive 
comment, please join the "softwires" mailing list. Discussion should 
commence later this week.

https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Thanks,

- Mark
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Carlos Pignataro | 30 Aug 2005 19:16
Picon
Favicon

IP Layer 2 Transport over L2TPv3

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
Permalink | Reply | 13 comments |
headers
Ignacio Goyret | 30 Aug 2005 19:23
Picon
Favicon

Re: IP Layer 2 Transport over L2TPv3

Group,
Personally, I think we should accept this draft as a WG item.
Any objections? Comments?
-Ignacio

At 13:16 8/30/2005 -0400, 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>L2tpext mailing list
>L2tpext <at> ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bill Storer (bstorer | 30 Aug 2005 20:35
Picon
Favicon

RE: IP Layer 2 Transport over L2TPv3

Sounds good to me.

Bill 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: l2tpext-bounces <at> ietf.org 
> [mailto:l2tpext-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ignacio Goyret
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 10:24 AM
> To: l2tpext <at> ietf.org
> Cc: Wei Luo (luo)
> Subject: Re: [L2tpext] IP Layer 2 Transport over L2TPv3
> 
> Group,
> Personally, I think we should accept this draft as a WG item.
> Any objections? Comments?
> -Ignacio
> 
> 
> At 13:16 8/30/2005 -0400, 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/ms
g06623.htm
> >l 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.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane