Subject: Re: [L2tpext] Question on L2TP Differentiated Services Extension draft

From: Ignacio Goyret <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 22:27:28 -0800

IMHO, using the SubAddress AVP for anything other than ISDN subaddress
information is plain suicidal. We are not running out of AVP space.
Allocate a new AVP. It is easy and it reduces the chance of a conflict
of uses.

This eliminates all the restrictions altogether and you can pass that
AVP on any command you need. Just make sure that you don't set the M-bit...

At 08:45 PM 12/6/01 -0800, Naveen PN Gowda wrote: 

Hi, 

I have a question in draft "L2TP Differentiated Services Extension". 
        
In section 6, page 5,  

"In order to help the session terminator to distinguish one session 
 from another when looking up the DS value in its local or remote 
 policy database,the session initiator MAY use the Sub-Address AVP to 
 carry other session information in addition to the Calling Number AVP 
(ICRQ), the Called Number AVP (ICRQ, OCRQ).  " 

In case where we want to retrive policy database from remote, like Radius,  
then how can we get the DS value before authentication phase at LNS 
can complete ? 

Is it not a good idea to send DS value once the authentication phase is 
complete (in case of LNS), as mentioned in: 
        draft-elwin-l2tpext-ipservices-01.txt 

This also eliminates the following restrictions mentioned in the 
following lines, in Section 6, page 5. 

"As described in [RFC 2661], the Sub-Address AVP is an ASCII string for 
encoding additional information, and it may be necessary for the 
administrators of the LAC and the LNS to coordinate interpretation of 
the value in this AVP.  For instance, the administrators may agree upon 
using user name in this AVP when carrying PPP in L2TP payload." 

Thanks 
Naveen 

<<<<

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

---

From: "W. Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 15:41:59 -0800

> Allocate a new AVP. It is easy and it reduces the chance of a conflict

Good point Ignacio, and FWIW I very much agree. In fact, I think we should
include this sort of recommendation in the new L2TP base draft - I have seen
attempts to overload AVPs more than once.