Network Working Group Mike Davison
INTERNET DRAFT Cisco
Category: Standards Track Arthur Lin
Title: draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tp-atm-02.txt Tahoe Networks
Date: August 2001 Ajoy Singh
Motorola
John Stephens
Cayman Systems
Rollins Turner
Paradyne
Rene Tio
Suhail Nanji
Redback Networks
L2TP Over AAL5
<draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tp-atm-02.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents validA new Request for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It Comments is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work now available in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
To view the list Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
The distribution of this memo is unlimited. It is filed as <draft-
ietf-l2tpext-l2tp-atm-02.txt>, and expires February, 2002. Please
send comments to the authors.
Davison, Lin, online RFC libraries.
RFC 3355
Title: Layer Two Tunnelling Protocol (L2TP) Over ATM
Adaptation Layer 5 (AAL5)
Author(s): A. Singh, Stephens, R. Turner, R. Tio, S. Nanji [Page1]
Abstract
Status: Standards Track
Date: August 2002
Mailbox: rturner@eng.paradyne.com, tor@redback.com,
asingh1@motorola.com, suhail@redback.com
Pages: 13
Characters: 25114
Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None
I-D Tag: draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tp-atm-03.txt
URL: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3355.txt
The Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) [RFC2661] provides a standard method for
transporting the link layer of PPP [RFC1661] the Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)
between a dial-up server and a Network Access Server, using a network
connection in lieu of a physical point to point point-to-point connection. This
document describes the use of an ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM)
network for the underlying network connection. ATM User-Network
Interface (UNI) Signalling Signaling Specification Version 4.0 [SIG40] or Version 3.1 [SIG31]
with ATM Adaptation Layer 5 (AAL5) [ITU93] are supported as interfaces to the
ATM network.
Applicability
This specification document is intended for implementations a product of L2TP that use
ATM to provide the communications link between the L2TP Access
Concentrator and the L2TP Network Server.
1. Introduction
The Point-to-Point Protocol, PPP, [RFC1661] is frequently used on the
link between a personal computer with a dial modem and a network
service provider, or NSP. The Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP)
[RFC2661] enables a dial-up server to provide access to a remote NSP
by extending the PPP connection through a tunnel in a network to
which both it and the NSP are directly connected. A "tunnel" is a
network layer connection between two nodes, used in the role of a
data link layer connection between those nodes, possibly as part of a
different network. In [RFC2661] the dial-up server is called an L2TP
Access Concentrator, or LAC. The remote device that provides access
to a network is called an L2TP Network Server, or LNS. L2TP uses a
packet delivery service to create a tunnel between the LAC and the
LNS. "L2TP is designed to be largely insulated from the details
Extensions Working Group of the media over which the tunnel IETF.
This is established; L2TP requires only
that the tunnel media provide packet oriented point-to-point
connectivity" [RFC2661]. An ATM network with AAL5 offers now a suitable
form of packet oriented connection. Proposed Standard Protocol.
This standard supplements
[RFC2661] by providing details specific to the use of AAL5 for a
point-to-point connection between LAC and LNS.
2. Conventions
Requirements keywords The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
Davison, Lin, Singh, Stephens, Turner, Tio, Nanji [Page2]
[RFC2119].
A list of acronyms used in this document is given at the end of the
document as Appendix A.
3. AAL5 Layer Service Interface
L2TP treats the underlying ATM AAL5 layer service as a bit-
synchronous point-to-point link. In this context, the L2TP link
corresponds to specifies an ATM AAL5 virtual circuit (VC). The VC MUST be
full-duplex, point to point, and it MAY be either dedicated (i.e.,
permanent, set up by provisioning) or switched (set up on demand.)
The AAL5 message mode service, in the non-assured mode of operation,
without the corrupted delivery option MUST be used.
Interface Format - The L2TP/AAL5 layer boundary presents an octet
service interface to the AAL5 layer. There is no provision Internet standards track protocol for sub-
octets to be supplied or accepted.
3.1 Maximum Transfer Unit
Each L2TP PDU MUST be transported within a single AAL5 PDU.
Therefore the maximum transfer unit (MTU) of the AAL5 connection
constrains the MTU of the L2TP tunnel that uses the connection and
the MTU of all PPP connections that use
the tunnel. ( [RFC1661]
refers to this as Maximum Receive Unit, or MRU. In [SIG31], it is the
Forward Internet community, and Backward Maximum CPCS-SDU Size.)
An implementation MUST support a PPP MRU of at least 1500 bytes.
An implementation SHOULD use a larger MTU than the minimum value
specified above. It is RECOMMENDED that an implementation support an
IP packet of at least 9180 bytes in the PPP PDU.
3.2 Quality of Service
In order to provide a desired Quality of Service (QoS), requests discussion and possibly
different qualities of service to different client connections, an
implementation MAY use more than one AAL5 connection between LAC and
LNS.
QoS mechanisms, such as Differentiated UBR [DUBR], that could involve
inverse multiplexing a tunnel across multiple VCs are suggestions
for further
study. QoS mechanisms applicable to a single tunnel corresponding improvements. Please refer to
a single VC, are independent of the ATM transport and out of scope of
this document.
Davison, Lin, Singh, Stephens, Turner, Tio, Nanji [Page3]
3.3 ATM Connection Parameters
The L2TP layer does not impose any restrictions regarding
transmission rate or the underlying ATM layer traffic descriptor
parameters.
Specific traffic parameters MAY be set for a PVC connection by
agreement between the communicating parties. The caller MAY request
specific traffic parameters at the time an SVC connection is set up.
Autoconfiguration of end-systems for PVCs can be faciliated by the
use current edition of the optional ILMI 4.0 extensions documented in [ILMIA]. This
provides comparable information to the IEs used
"Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for control plane
connection establishment.
4. Multi-Protocol Encapsulation
This specification uses the principles, terminology,
standardization state and frame
structure described in "Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM
Adaptation Layer 5" [RFC2684]. The purpose status of this specification is
not to reiterate what is already standardized in [RFC2684], but to
specify how the mechanisms described in [RFC2684] are to be used to
map L2TP onto an AAL5-based ATM network.
As specified in [RFC2684], L2TP PDUs shall be carried in the payload
field of Common Part Convergence Sublayer (CPCS) PDUs of AAL5, and
the Service Specific Convergence Sublayer (SSCS) of AAL5 shall be
empty.
Section 1 of [RFC2684] defines two mechanisms for identifying the
protocol encapsulated in the AAL5 PDU's payload field:
1. Virtual circuit (VC) based multiplexing.
2. Logical Link Control (LLC) encapsulation.
In the first mechanism, the payload's protocol type is implicitly
agreed to by the end points for each virtual circuit using
provisioning or control plane procedures. This mechanism will be
referred to as "VC-multiplexed L2TP".
In the second mechanism, the payload's protocol type is explicitly
identified in each AAL5 PDU by an IEEE 802.2 LLC header. This
mechanism will be referred to as "LLC encapsulated L2TP".
Davison, Lin, Singh, Stephens, Turner, Tio, Nanji [Page4]
An L2TP implementation:
1. MUST support LLC encapsulated L2TP on PVCs.
2. MAY support LLC encapsulated L2TP on SVCs.
3. MAY support VC-multiplexed L2TP on PVCs or SVCs.
When a PVC is used, the endpoints must be configured to use one of
the two encapsulation methods.
If an implementation supports SVCs, it MUST use the [Q.2931] Annex C
procedure to negotiate connection setup, encoding the Broadband Lower
Layer Interface (B-LLI) information element (IE) to signal either VC-
multiplexed L2TP or LLC encapsulated L2TP. The details of this
control plane procedure are described in section 7.
If an implementation is connecting through a Frame Relay/ATM FRF.8
[FRF8] service inter-working unit, then it MUST use LLC encapsulated
L2TP.
5. LLC Encapsulated L2TP over AAL5
When LLC encapsulation is used, the payload field of the AAL5 CPCS
PDU SHALL be encoded as shown in Figure 1. The pertinent fields in
that diagram are:
1. IEEE 802.2 LLC header: Source and destination SAP of 0xAA
followed by a frame type of Un-numbered Information (value 0x03).
This LLC header indicates that an IEEE 802.1a SNAP header follows
[RFC2684].
2. IEEE 802.1a SNAP Header: The three octet Organizationally
Unique Identifier (OUI) value of 0x00-00-5E identifies IANA
(Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.) The two octet Protocol
Identifier (PID) identifies L2TP as the encapsulated protocol.
The PID value is 0x0007.
3. The L2TP PDU.
Davison, Lin, Singh, Stephens, Turner, Tio, Nanji [Page5]
Figure 1 - LLC Encapsulated L2TP PDU
+-------------------------+ --------
| Destination SAP (0xAA) | ^
+-------------------------+ |
| Source SAP (0xAA) | LLC header
+-------------------------+ |
| Frame Type = UI (0x03) | V
+-------------------------+ --------
| OUI (0x00-00-5E)| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-| SNAP Header
| PID (0x00-07) | |
+-------------------------+ --------
| | |
| | L2TP PDU
| | |
+-------------------------+ --------
Note: The format Distribution
of the overall AAL5 CPCS PDU is shown in the next
section.
The end points MAY be bi-laterally provisioned to send other LLC-
encapsulated protocols besides L2TP across the same virtual
connection.
6. Virtual Circuit Multiplexed L2TP over AAL5
VC-multiplexed L2TP over AAL5 is an alternative technique to LLC
encapsulated L2TP over AAL5. In this case, the L2TP PDU memo is the AAL5
payload without an LLC header. unlimited.
This announcement is sometimes called "Null
encapsulation."
Davison, Lin, Singh, Stephens, Turner, Tio, Nanji [Page6]
Figure 2 - AAL5 CPCS-PDU Format
+-------------------------------+ -------
| . | ^
| . | |
| CPCS-PDU payload | L2TP PDU
| up to 2^16 - 1 octets) | |
| . | V
+-------------------------------+ -------
| PAD ( 0 - 47 octets) |
+-------------------------------+ -------
| CPCS-UU (1 octet ) | ^
+-------------------------------+ |
| CPI (1 octet ) | |
+-------------------------------+CPCS-PDU Trailer
| Length (2 octets) | |
+-------------------------------| |
| CRC (4 octets) | V
+-------------------------------+ -------
The Common Part Convergence Sub-layer (CPCS) PDU payload field
contains user information up to 2^16 - 1 octets.
The PAD field pads the CPCS-PDU to fit exactly into the ATM cells
such that the last 48 octet cell payload created by the SAR sublayer
will have the CPCS-PDU Trailer right justified in the cell.
The CPCS-UU (User-to-User indication) field is used to transparently
transfer CPCS user sent to user information. The field has no function
under the multi-protocol ATM encapsulation IETF list and MAY be set to any
value.
The CPI (Common Part Indicator) field aligns the CPCS-PDU trailer RFC-DIST list.
Requests to
64 bits. Possible additional functions are for further study in ITU-
T. When only the 64 bit alignment function is used, this field SHALL be coded as 0x00.
The Length field indicates the length, in octets, of the payload
field. The maximum value for the Length field is 65535 octets. A
Length field coded as 0x00 MAY be used for the abort function.
The CRC field SHALL be computed over the entire CPCS-PDU except the
CRC field itself.
The CPCS-PDU payload SHALL consist of an L2TP PDU as defined in
[RFC2661].
Davison, Lin, Singh, Stephens, Turner, Tio, Nanji [Page7]
7. Out-of-Band Control Plane Signalling
7.1 Connection Setup
An SVC connection can originate at either the LAC or the LNS. An
implementation that supports the use of SVCs MUST be able added to both
originate and respond to SVC setup requests. Except for the B-LLI IE
specified below, all other IEs required for ATM User-Network
Interface (UNI) Signalling Specification Version 4.0 [SIG40] should
be encoded as per [RFC2331].
When originating an SVC AAL5 connection, the caller MUST request in
the SETUP message either VC-multiplexed L2TP, LLC encapsulated L2TP, or both VC-multiplexed and LLC-encapsulated L2TP. The B-LLI IE SHALL
be used to specify the requested encapsulation method. When a caller
is offering both encapsulations, the two B-LLI IEs SHALL be encoded
within a Broadband Repeat Indicator information element in the order
of the sender's preference.
An implementation MUST be able to accept an incoming call that offers
LLC encapsulated L2TP in deleted from the caller's request. The called peer's
implementation MUST reject a call setup request that only offers an
encapsulation that it does not support. Implementations originating
a call offering both protocol encapsulation techniques MUST IETF distribution list
should be able sent to accept the use of either encapsulation technique.
When originating an LLC encapsulated call that is IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to carry an L2TP
payload, the [Q.2931] B-LLI IE user information layer 2 protocol
field SHALL be encoded
added to select LAN Logical Link Control
(ISO/IEC8802-2) in octet 6. See [RFC2331] Appendix A for an example.
When originating a VC-multiplexed call that is to carry an L2TP
payload, or deleted from the [Q.2931] B-LLI IE user information layer 2 protocol
field SHALL RFC-DIST distribution list should
be encoded sent to select no layer 2 protocol in octet 6 and
layer 3 protocol field SHALL RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.
Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be encoded to select ISO/IEC TR 9577
[ISO9577] in octet 7. Furthermore, as per DSL Forum TR-037
[DSLF037], the extension octets specify VC-multiplexed L2TP by using
the SNAP IPI, followed obtained by sending
an OUI owned by IANA, followed by the PID
assigned by IANA for L2TP. Thus, the User Information layer 3
protocol field is encoded: 0B 80 00 00 5E 00 07. The AAL5 frame's
payload field will always contain an L2TP PDU. The SNAP IPI is
employed only to use the IANA L2TP protocol value EMAIL message to specify the VC-
multiplexed PDU.
If the caller offers both encapsulation methods and the called peer
accepts the call, the called peer SHALL specify the encapsulation
method by including exactly one B-LLI IE in the Connect message.
Davison, Lin, Singh, Stephens, Turner, Tio, Nanji [Page8]
If an SVC tunnel is reset in accordance rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with section 4.1 of
[RFC2661], both ends MUST clear the SVC. Any user sessions on the
tunnel will message body
help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example:
To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG
Subject: getting rfcs
help: ways_to_get_rfcs
Requests for special distribution should be terminated by the reset. Either end MAY attempt addressed to
re-establish the tunnel upon receipt of a new request from a client.
7.2 Connection Setup Failure
When a connection setup fails, the L2TP entity that attempted the
connection setup MAY consider the called entity unreachable until
notified that the unreachable entity is available. The conditions
under which an entity determines that another is unreachable and how
it determines that the other is available again are implementation
decisions.
7.3 Connection Teardown
When there are no active sessions on an SVC tunnel, either end MAY
optionally clear the connection.
8. Connection Failure
Upon notification that an AAL5 SVC connection has been cleared, an
Implementation SHALL tear down the tunnel and return the control
connection to the idle state.
9. Security Considerations
ATM networks, being virtual circuit based, are generally less
vulnerable to security attacks than IP based networks. The
probability of a security breach caused by misrouted ATM cells is
considered to be negligible.
Currently there is no standard specification for ATM security.
However, the ATM Forum is working on an ATM Security Framework
document. In light
author of this work, the issue of security will be re-
examined at a later date to see if L2TP over ATM specific protection
mechanisms are still required. In the interim, basic security issues
are discussed RFC in the base L2TP specification [RFC2661].
10. Acknowledgments
This Internet Draft draws heavily question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless
specifically noted otherwise on material from: "PPP Over AAL5"
(RFC 2364) by George Gross, Manu Kaycee, Arthur Lin, Andrew Malis,
and John Stephens; the current Internet Draft on L2TP over Frame
Relay, by Vipin Rawat, Rene Tio, Suhail Nanji and Rohit Verma; and an
Davison, Lin, Singh, Stephens, Turner, Tio, Nanji [Page9]
earlier Internet Draft on L2TP over AAL5 by by Nagraj Arunkumar, Manu
Kaycee, Tim Kwok, and Arthur Lin.
Special thanks to David Allan of Nortel for his invaluable review of
this document.
11. References
[RFC2661] W. M. Townsley, A. Valencia, A. Rubens, G. Singh Pall, G.
Zorn, B. Palter, "Layer Two Tunnelling Protocol (L2TP)", RFC 2661,
August 1999
[RFC1661] Simpson, W., Editor, "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)",
STD 51, RFC 1661, July 1994.
[SIG31] The ATM Forum, "ATM User-Network Interface Specification
V3.1", af-uni-0010.002, 1994.
[ITU93] International Telecommunication Union, "B-ISDN ATM Adaptation
Layer(AAL) Specification", ITU-T Recommendation I.363, March 1993.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in itself, all RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2684] D. Grossman, J. Heinanen, "Multiprotocol Encapsulation over
ATM Adaptation Layer 5", RFC 2684, September 1999.
[Q.2931] International Telecommunication Union, "Broadband Integrated
Service Digital Network (B-ISDN) Digital Subscriber Signaling System
No.2 (DSS2) User Network Interface Layer 3 Specification are for Basic
Call/Connection Control", ITU-T Recommendation Q.2931, Feb. 1995.
[FRF8] The Frame Relay Forum, "Frame Relay/ATM PVC Service
Interworking Implementation Agreement", FRF.8, April 1995.
[ISO9577] ISO/IEC DTR 9577.2, "Information technology -
Telecommunications and Information exchange between systems -
Protocol Identification in the network layer", 1995-08-16.
[RFC2331] M. Maher, "ATM Signalling Support
unlimited distribution.echo
Submissions for IP over ATM - UNI
Signalling 4.0 Update", RFC 2331, April 1998.
[DSLF037] DSL Forum Technical Report TR-037, "Auto-Configuration Requests for
the Connection Between the DSL Broadband Network Termination (B-NT)
and the Network using ATM", March 2001.
[SIG40] ATM Forum, "ATM User-Network Interface (UNI) Signalling
Davison, Lin, Singh, Stephens, Turner, Tio, Nanji [Page10]
Specification Version 4.0", af-sig-0061.000, finalized July 1996;
available at ftp://ftp.atmforum.com/pub.
[DUBR] ATM Forum, "Addendum Comments should be sent to TM 4.1: Differentiated UBR", af-
tm-0149.000, finalized July, 2000; available at
ftp://ftp.atmforum.com/pub
[ILMIA] ATM Forum, "Addendum
RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to the ILMI Auto-configuration
Extension", af-nm-00165.000, April 2001.
Authors' Addresses:
Rollins Turner
Paradyne Corporation
8545 126th Avenue North
Largo, FL 33773
Email: rturner@eng.paradyne.com
Ajoy Singh
Motorola
1421 West Shure Dr,
Arlington Heights, IL 60004
Email: asingh1@motorola.com
Suhail Nanji
Redback Networks, Inc.
300 Holger Way
Sunnyvale, CA 95134
Email: suhail@redback.com
Rene Tio
Redback Networks, Inc.
300 Holger Way
Sunnyvale, CA 95134
Email: tor@redback.com
Davison, Lin, Singh, Stephens, Turner, Tio, Nanji [Page11]
Appendix A. Acronyms
AAL5 ATM Adaptation Layer Type 5
ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode
B-LLI Broadband Low Layer Information
CPCS Common Part Convergence Sublayer
IANA Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
IE Information Element
L2TP Layer Two Tunneling Protocol
LAC L2TP Access Concentrator
LLC Logical Link Control
LNS L2TP Network Server
MTU Maximum Transfer Unit
MRU Maximum Receive Unit
NSP Network Service Provider
OUI Organizationally Unique Identifier
PDU Protocol Data Unit
PID Protocol Identifier
PPP Point-to-Point Protocol
PVC Permanent Virtual Circuit
SAP Service Access Point
SNAP Subnetwork Address Protocol
SVC Switched Virtual Circuit
VC Virtual Circuit
Davison, Lin, Singh, Stephens, Turner, Tio, Nanji [Page12] RFC
Authors, for further information.