2.2.8 Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Extensions (l2tpext)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 48th IETF Meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It may now be out-of-date. Last Modified: 17-Jul-00


W. Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>

Internet Area Director(s):

Thomas Narten <narten@raleigh.ibm.com>
Erik Nordmark <nordmark@eng.sun.com>

Internet Area Advisor:

Thomas Narten <narten@raleigh.ibm.com>

Mailing Lists:

General Discussion:l2tp@ipsec.org
To Subscribe: l2tp-request@ipsec.org
Archive: http://www.ipsec.org/email/l2tp/

Description of Working Group:

The Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol (L2TP), defined in RFC2661 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2661.txt) is a protocol for tunneling PPP (RFC 1661) sessions over various network types. The group will provide a forum for discussion and development of extensions to L2TP, and actively advance the L2TP base protocol to Internet Standard.

The group will:

Define and advance standard MIB for L2TP management.

Produce documents describing how L2TP operates over link types other than IP (e.g., ATM, Frame Relay, etc.)

Identify and define specific parameters and modes of IPsec in order to aid interoperability when IPsec is used to secure L2TP traffic.

Define and review the definition of any additional IETF AVPs which are of interest to the group.

Goals and Milestones:

Oct 99


Advance L2TP MIB to Proposed Standard

Feb 00


Advance L2TP Security to Proposed Standard

May 00


Advance L2TP over ATM and Frame Relay to Proposed Standard

Sep 00


Advance L2TP to Draft Standard


No Request For Comments

Current Meeting Report

L2TPExt WG 15:30 2AUG00 Pittsburgh
Chair: Mark Townsley
Minute-taker: Dory Leifer

Agenda Bashing
No changes suggested to the prepared agenda

VPN Bakeoff announcement
San Diego bakeoff announcement was given by Mark in Anita's absence

l2tp-bis-00 presented by Mark

slides "l2tp-bis-00" presented:
Ambiguity in bearer capabilities discovered in workshop and required


Madhvi Verma, James Carlson, Rohit Verma

Slides presented with Madhvi Verma

WG unpassionately agreed that the draft was useful. No additional comments.


Presented by William Dixon

WG discussion:

Zorn: customers do see the difference between the two cases referenced in "question" on certificate handling.

WG consenus is that it is a matter of local policy if machine or user cert (and MAY is ok)

Mark: ready for last call?

Steve Belovin has reportedly determined that there may be security problems but nobody has seen them posted

Would be nice to see this to see if we can improve the security

L2TP MIB last call on May 31st







Suhail Nanji took over Rene Tio's draft on atm

We're not going to talk about L2TP/IPsec NAT because has been presented in two other working groups already.

Time 16:30


Ethernet over L2TP
Suhail Nanji

Tunnel should be able to support PPP and eth over L2TP
(two other configurations)

Explained motivation in slide "PPPoE with Ethernet over L2TP"


l2tp Circuit Emulation Services (CES) Extension
Danny McPherson
Slides presented

Motivation payload may be other frame services (???)

Service type AVP may be needed

Goal provide IP-based circuit emulation services

Jim Boyle is presenting STS services over IP and RTP definition. They don't specify IP tunneling protocol.

Meeting end 17:30

None of the below talked about.

Bernard Aboba, et al

WG draft status

Suhail Nanji


None received.