Subject: [Fwd: Re: [L2tpext] Re: [Pppoe-ietf] PPPoE Relay over L2TP - Feedbackneeded]

From: "W. Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:46:23 -0700

Reinaldo,

David said that it would be OK for me to forward this to the list. This was in
response to the only remaining issue David felt was significant in your list of
recently posted items.

Thanks,

- Mark

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [L2tpext] Re: [Pppoe-ietf] PPPoE Relay over L2TP - Feedbackneeded
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:07:50 -0500 (EST)
From: "David F. Skoll" <[email-masked]>
To: "W. Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]>

Hi, Mark.

OK, I read the proposal more carefully, and it could work.  Your relay
agents could accumulate information in the Relay-Session-ID tag in the
Host->AC direction, and accumulate information in the AC-Cookie tag
in the AC->Host direction.  This would work without storing state.

Although it goes against the intent of RFC2516, neither end would notice
anything funny going on, so it should be OK.

In fact, I will probably modify my relay agent to optionally work this
way and allow multi-stage relaying. :-)

Regards,

David.

_______________________________________________
L2tpext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext

---

From: Ron da Silva <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 14:24:16 -0500

I finally had a chance to read this thread.  Looks like it came full-circle
and we closed the issues.  If so, I'll proceed to do a final draft that includes
the feedback from SLC so we can proceed to last call in a few weeks?

-ron