L2TPV3 RFC PDF
RFC Frame Relay over L2TPv3 July present in the ICRQ in order to identify the PVC (together with the identity of the LCCE itself, as defined in. Layer 2 Tunnelling Protocol Version 3 is an IETF standard related to L2TP that can be used as IETF L2TPEXT working group · RFC – Layer Two Tunneling Protocol – Version 3 (L2TPv3) · RFC – Layer Two Tunneling Protocol “L2TP. Abstract This document describes the transport of Ethernet frames over the Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol, Version 3 (L2TPv3). This includes the transport of.
|Published (Last):||5 September 2008|
|PDF File Size:||12.38 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.47 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Applicability Statement HDLC Pseudowires support a “port to port” or “interface to interface” deployment model operating in a point-to-point fashion.
Maria Alice Dos Santos provided helpful review and comment. Pignataro Request for Comments: Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made rcf obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http: If so, the period and maximum number of retries MUST be configurable.
This document is subject to the rc, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. The reader is expected to be very familiar with the terminology and protocol constructs defined in [ RFC ]. For reference, this AVP is shown below: The exact method of how this value is configured, retrieved, discovered, or otherwise determined at each LCCE is outside the scope of this document.
Additional HDLC result codes are defined as follows: Beyond the considerations when carrying other data link types, there are no additional considerations specific to carrying HDLC.
RFC – Frame Relay over Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3)
The following is a summary: The sequencing mechanisms described in Section 4. Reserved bits MUST be set to 0 when sending, and ignored upon receipt. A non-exhaustive list of examples and considerations of this transparent nature include: The specific negotiations and signaling of the protocol being transported are performed between Remote Systems transparently, and the LCCE does not participate in them.
Errors or corruption introduced in the HDLCPW payload during encapsulation or transit across the packet-switched network may not be detected. Sequencing may be enabled in the HDLCPW for some l2tpv33 all packets to detect lost, duplicate, or out-of-order packets on a per-session basis see Section 4.
RFC: L2TPv3 interface
Waiting until the l2tpv transitions to ACTIVE may be preferred, as it delays allocation of resources until absolutely necessary. All sessions established by a given control connection utilize the L2TP Hello facility defined in Section 4.
Please refer to the current edition of the “Internet Official Protocol Standards” STD 1 for the standardization state and status of this protocol.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be l2hpv3 to implement this standard.
The ICCN is the final stage in the session establishment, confirming the receipt of the ICRP with acceptable parameters to allow bidirectional traffic. The value of N depends on the following fields: For purposes of this discussion, the action of locally associating an interface running HDLC with a PW by local configuration or otherwise is referred to 2ltpv3 “provisioning” the HDLC interface.
The MTU and fragmentation implications resulting from this are discussed in Section 4. ,2tpv3 gives all sessions basic dead peer and path detection between PEs.
RFC: L2TPv3 interface
Network Working Group C. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr ietf. These words are often capitalized. Table of Contents 1.
Specification of Requirements In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements of the specification. This lack of integrity-check transparency may not be of concern if it is known that the inner payloads or upper protocols transported perform their own error and integrity checking.
Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.