Subject: Re: [L2tpext] Application Identifier AVP

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:17:50 +0300

the draft

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-heinanen-dns-l2tp-vpls-01.txt

contain an example of the usage of the proposed Application Identifier
AVP including application specific End Identifier AVP and Result/Error
Codes.

-- juha

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:17:50 +0300

the draft

-- juha

---

From: "Cheng-Yin Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: 9 Sep 2002 13:16:59 -0400

Juha,
As I mentioned before I think your proposal to use the Application
Identifier AVP to indicate the
meaning of End Id AVP (e.g. it's a VPN name/ID) is useful.

Consider the scenario below:
  A                      B
+----+             +----+
|        |----------|       |
|        |----------|       |
+----+             +----+

where A establishes two tunnels to B for one VPN. ("A" may also establish
tunnels to other nodes for the same VPN).

I think, in this case the VPN ID itself cannot be used both to determine if
there is a tie and to indicate the VPN name/ID, since both L2TP sessions
between A & B would require different End ID/tie determination value, but
would use the same VPN name/ID. One way is to use a different AVP (instead
of the End ID AVP) to store what the Application ID indicate (VPN name).
This way, the End ID can still be used for tie determination and the new
AVP can be used for the VPN name/ID.

Alternatively, the End ID may consist of both the tie determination value
and the VPN name and the question then is should there be a different
Application ID AVP for scenario such as this or the same Application ID AVP
(defining the End ID to consist of both tie determination & VPN name) can
be used for DNS based VPLS in general (your dns vpls draft).
Or perhaps you have another suggestion for this problem.

thanks
cheng-yin

---

From: "Cheng-Yin Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: 9 Sep 2002 13:16:59 -0400

Juha,

thanks
cheng-yin

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:53:03 +0300

> Consider the scenario below:

just for curiosity, why would there be two tunnels for the same vpn
between A and B?  i don't remember that any of the ppvpn vpn proposals
would call for two ip tunnels between the same pair of PEs for the same
vpn.

 > be used for DNS based VPLS in general (your dns vpls draft).

the above is close to what i have proposed.  the idea is that each
application rfc that uses the End Identifer AVP would define, how it
looks like. 

in case YOUR vpn application is such that there may be more than one
l2tp tunnel between two PEs for the same vpn, then YOUR vpn application
rfc would define the structure of the End Identifier to be such that it
includes both the vpn name and the tunnel index.  in MY dns/l2tp vpls
proposal there can never be more than one l2tp tunnel for the same vpn
between a pair PEs and therefore the End Identifier just contains the
vpn id.

-- juha

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:53:03 +0300

-- juha