Which applications still use it Joel?

Stewart

> On 9 Jun 2021, at 12:42, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> There is plenty of L2TP still in use.
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 6/9/2021 6:23 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>> Sequence number checking in the forwarder is always a problem because it is 
>> stateful so I doubt that many high-scale or high-speed forwarders ever did 
>> this.
>> I think there is an undisclosed assumption that go up enough levels and its 
>> IP so sequence number checking in the transport network (as opposed to the 
>> transport layer) is not really needed.
>> I doubt that there is much L2TP still out there. It was in its prime with 
>> dialup modems. L2TPv3 which was intended to replace it became niche with, as 
>> Andy says, operators who did not want MPLS. Much of what L2TPv3 was intended 
>> for was actually done with PW over MPLS with some replacement with by Mac in 
>> Mac for cost reasons.
>> If Carlos does not know the answer, Mark T would be my next port of call.
>> Stewart
>>> On 8 Jun 2021, at 22:41, Andrew G. Malis <[email protected] 
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Bob,
>>> 
>>> In addition to the cases listed by Derek, L2TPv3 can also carry non-IP 
>>> pseudowire data, such as Ethernet frames (see RFC 4719 for example). Even 
>>> though 4719 says that sequencing is optional, I would certainly recommend 
>>> it :-).
>>> 
>>> But I guess that's really not what you were asking about, since you 
>>> specifically mentioned IP data. But it is a case where you would probably 
>>> see sequencing in use.
>>> 
>>> Back in the day, Sprint made good use of Ethernet over L2TPv3, as they were 
>>> in the anti-MPLS camp at the time. But that's water over the bridge, and I 
>>> really don't know if this solution continues to be in active use. Mark 
>>> Townsley might know.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Andy
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 10:07 AM Derek Fawcus 
>>> <[email protected] 
>>> <mailto:dfawcus%[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>    On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 03:13:15PM +0100, Bob Briscoe wrote:
>>>    > The L2TP RFC says sequencing /can/ be disabled for IP data, but it
>>>    > doesn't say SHOULD or MUST. Is it possible that some operators
>>>    enable
>>>    > L2TP sequencing for IP data? And if so, do you know why they would?
>>>    > Also, are you aware of any other types of tunnel that might try
>>>    to keep
>>>    > IP data packets in sequence?
>>> 
>>>    How many intermediate headers are you considering between L2TP and
>>>    where
>>>    a carried IP header may exist?
>>> 
>>>    Maybe I'm getting the wrong end of the stick, but surely this engages
>>>    the text from section 5.4 of RFC 2661:
>>> 
>>>      "For example, if the PPP session being tunneled is not
>>>       utilizing any stateful compression or encryption protocols and is
>>>       only carrying IP (as determined by the PPP NCPs that are
>>>       established), then the LNS might decide to disable sequencing as IP
>>>       is tolerant to datagram loss and reordering."
>>> 
>>>    This would then suggest if L2TP is carrying PPP, the PPP session
>>>    is not
>>>    multi-link, and is making use of compression (including one of the
>>>    versions of IP header compression) in some form for IP packets, then
>>>    reordering will impact the ability to decompress.
>>> 
>>>    So such an L2TP data session may well make use of sequence numbers to
>>>    prevent reordering.
>>> 
>>>    I guess similarly in L2TPv3 when the PW is for PPP, and possibly also
>>>    the fragmentation scheme in RFC 4623 which requires sequence numbers;
>>>    and such PWE3 links could ultimately be carrying IP packets.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    DF
>>> 
>>>    (not an operator)
>>> 
>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>    Int-area mailing list
>>>    [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>>>    <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Int-area mailing list
>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>> _______________________________________________
>> Int-area mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Reply via email to