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.

Author: Mezijind Nikojind
Country: Panama
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: History
Published (Last): 13 May 2008
Pages: 241
PDF File Size: 2.51 Mb
ePub File Size: 16.29 Mb
ISBN: 356-8-64428-819-1
Downloads: 71987
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Sashakar

Please refer to the current edition of the “Internet Official Protocol Standards” STD 1 for the standardization state and status of this protocol.

RFC: L2TPv3 interface

A non-exhaustive list of examples and considerations of this transparent nature include: This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

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 to 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: Waiting until the interface transitions to ACTIVE may be preferred, as it delays allocation of resources until absolutely necessary.

Beyond the considerations when carrying other data link types, there are no additional considerations specific to carrying HDLC. The reader is expected to be very familiar with the terminology ll2tpv3 protocol constructs defined in [ RFC ]. For reference, this AVP is shown below: The Frc 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 required to implement this standard.


The MTU and fragmentation implications resulting from this are discussed in Section 4. Table of Contents 1. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr ietf. Reserved bits MUST be set to 0 when sending, and ignored upon receipt.

The following is a summary: Maria Alice Dos Santos provided helpful review and comment. Errors or corruption introduced in the HDLCPW payload l2rpv3 encapsulation or transit across the packet-switched network may not be detected. If so, the period and maximum number of retries MUST be configurable.

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 as “provisioning” the HDLC interface. The exact method of how this value is configured, retrieved, discovered, or otherwise determined at each LCCE is outside the scope of this document.

This gives all sessions basic dead peer and path detection between PEs. L2fpv3 specific negotiations and signaling of the protocol being transported are performed between Remote Systems transparently, and the LCCE does not participate in them. Sequencing may be enabled in the HDLCPW for some or all packets to detect lost, duplicate, or out-of-order packets on a per-session basis see Section 4.


All sessions established by a given control connection utilize the L2TP Hello facility defined in Section 4. Specification of Requirements In this document, several words are used to signify the rffc of the specification.

This lack of integrity-check transparency may not be of concern if it is known that l2tpv inner payloads or upper protocols transported perform their own ll2tpv3 and integrity checking.

RFC: L2TPv3 interface

Applicability Statement HDLC Pseudowires support a “port to port” or “interface to interface” deployment model operating in a point-to-point fashion. These words are often capitalized.

Distribution of this memo is unlimited. The ICCN is the final stage in the session establishment, confirming the receipt of the ICRP with acceptable parameters to allow bidirectional traffic. Additional HDLC result codes are defined as follows: 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.

The sequencing mechanisms described in Section 4. Pignataro Request for Comments: The value of N depends on the following fields: Network Working Group C.