W. Mark Townsley wrote:
>Hi Walter.
>
>The L2TP MIB we have today, which for the record is the MIB for RFC2661 L2TP
>over IPv4, has available for extensive review by this group as well as the MIB
>Doctors whose time is not easy to come by and blessing sometimes difficult to
>achieve. It has been a long and tedious process that I would hate to turn on its
>ear at this point and try to repeat from square zero.
>
>As you have mentioned, L2TPv3 will require significant MIB changes in order to
>support multiple L2 transports.
>
I think you mean different payloads. The MIB in its current form is
structured to support multiple L2 transports. I
would suspect that the effort involved is about the same as it was
tearing apart the L2TP protocol spec to
create base and payload specs.
evan
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
