Subject: [L2tpext] AVP type values are TBA

From: Magnus Lundström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:48:51 +0100 (CET)

Hello

I feel really stupid asking this, but how is one supposed to implement L2TPv3
according to the draft when some mandatory AVPs dont have the attribe type assigned?

After all, Cisco somehow managed to implement it.

Regards,
Magnus

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

---

From: Skip Booth <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:55:51 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

> according to the draft when some mandatory AVPs dont have the attribe type

You would implement it using vendor specific AVPs.  Obviously you can't
interoperate with other vendors using that method, but you can talk to yourself
:)

> After all, Cisco somehow managed to implement it.

Our current implementation is using Cisco AVPs.  As soon as the AVP numbers are
allocated by IANA, we plan to cut over immediately.

I believe Mark is just waiting for last call to finish and then he'll issue the
request for the AVP numbers.

-Skip

---

From: Skip Booth <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:55:51 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

-Skip

---

From: "W. Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:01:30 +0100

> according to the draft when some mandatory AVPs dont have the attribe type assigned?

Before RFC3438, which was just published last month, L2TP AVP numbers could only 
be assigned by the RFC Editor upon publication of the RFC itself (see the IANA 
Considerations of RFC2661). The restrictions are now a bit more loose, and if we 
pass WG last call, I personally think we can safely request AVPs from the IANA 
controlled IETF Vendor ID number space.

> After all, Cisco somehow managed to implement it.

Cisco's current pre-rfc implementation uses Vendor-Specific AVPs which follow 
the draft very closely, but with numbers defined within the Cisco Vendor ID 
number space for the new AVPs. As soon as we have IANA numbers, we will move to 
the numbers assigned (likely supporting both indefinitely).

Thanks,

- Mark

---

From: "W. Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:01:30 +0100

Thanks,

- Mark