Subject: New L2TP MIB

From: Klausberger Walter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 11:51:29 +0200

Hi,

I'd like to know, who will work on the new L2TP MIB, that will certainly be
necessary after introducing the new L2TP concept according to the new
agenda. As there are a lot of things to change, we should not delay the MIB
as much this time and start as soon as possible.

I think there are some major things to do...

- separating PPP from L2TP
- accept HDLC as one access transport protocol among others (eg. PPP over
ATM/AAL5, PPP over Frame Relay, PPPoE,...)
- provide additional tables for L2TP over AAL5, L2TP over Frame Relay,...
- support different tables for LAC and LNS (L2TP is not symmetric, at least
the sessions).
- adapt the MIB to new L2TP base draft.
- restructure the tables to support future extensions like PPP over L2TP
;-), DiffServ,...
- and so on...

I would like to volunteer in a new draft. So if someone already has some
basic thoughts about that, maybe we should discuss this in London. Maybe we
should provide the framework quite soon, so that drafts with extensions to
L2TP can also handle the corresponding MIB extensions.

- regards, walter

---

From: Evan Caves <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:26:10 -0700

Hi Walter,

   I cannot speak for the other editors but if you would like to 
help out on the L2TPng MIB then welcome.

   My thoughts on how we should evolve the MIB are similar to yours
except that, like the revised L2TP base draft, we should provide a
base L2TP MIB. That is reflect in the MIB what is in the base draft.
Since we cannot predict what L2TP will transport in the future we
should leave that to L2TP MIB extensions and provide support for
those extensions in the base MIB. The current MIB provides for
this (aleit for PPP payloads).

   I will not be in London but I think the other editors might be
and you can always have a discussion with either the chair or other
WG members.

evan
-

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:20:45 -0700

I'll be there, but Ross will not.

PatC