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: Zulkilabar Mataur
Country: Great Britain
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Medical
Published (Last): 9 August 2004
Pages: 253
PDF File Size: 15.17 Mb
ePub File Size: 15.83 Mb
ISBN: 841-2-62448-998-7
Downloads: 58044
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Tojazuru

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: Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Specification of Requirements In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements of the rffc. Waiting until the interface transitions to ACTIVE may be preferred, as it delays allocation of resources until absolutely necessary.

The ICCN is rfv final stage in the session establishment, confirming the receipt of the ICRP with acceptable parameters to allow bidirectional traffic. Pignataro Request for Comments: Applicability Statement HDLC Pseudowires support a “port to port” or “interface to interface” deployment model operating in a point-to-point fashion.


RFC – Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3) Extended Circuit Status Values

Reserved bits MUST be set to 0 when sending, and ignored upon receipt. Maria Alice Dos Santos provided helpful review and comment.

The value of N depends on the following fields: The following is a summary: This gives all sessions basic dead peer and path detection between PEs. Network Working Group C.

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.

Table of Contents 1.

L2TPv3 – Wikipedia

The exact method of how this value is configured, retrieved, discovered, or otherwise determined at each LCCE is outside the scope of this document. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr ietf. Errors or corruption introduced in the HDLCPW payload during encapsulation or transit across rcc packet-switched network may not be detected.

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.

Rvc so, the period and maximum number of retries MUST be configurable. 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 required to implement this standard. Additional HDLC result codes are defined as follows: 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.


The sequencing mechanisms described in Section 4.

Beyond the considerations when carrying other data link types, there are no additional considerations specific to carrying HDLC. 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 Rff 4.

Please refer to the current edition of the “Internet Official Protocol Standards” STD 1 for the standardization state and status of this protocol. The reader is expected to be very familiar with the terminology and protocol constructs defined in [ RFC ].

These words are often capitalized. For reference, this AVP is shown below: The specific negotiations and signaling of the protocol being transported are performed between Remote Systems transparently, and the L2tppv3 does not participate in them.

RFC: L2TPv3 interface

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. The MTU and fragmentation implications resulting from this are discussed in Section 4. A non-exhaustive list of examples and considerations of this transparent nature include: All sessions established by a given control connection utilize the L2TP Hello facility defined in Section 4.