[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 RFC 3355

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 valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work 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, Singh, Stephens, Turner, Tio, Nanji               [Page1]

INTERNET DRAFT                                                 July 2001


Abstract

   The Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) [RFC2661] provides a standard
   method for transporting the link layer of PPP [RFC1661] between a
   dial-up server and a Network Access Server, using a network
   connection in lieu of a physical point to point connection.  This
   document describes the use of an ATM network for the underlying
   network connection. ATM User-Network Interface (UNI) Signalling
   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 is intended for implementations 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 of
   the media over which the tunnel is established; L2TP requires only
   that the tunnel media provide packet oriented point-to-point
   connectivity" [RFC2661]. An ATM network with AAL5 offers a suitable
   form of packet oriented connection. 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]

INTERNET DRAFT                                                 July 2001


   [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 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 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 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), 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 for further
   study. QoS mechanisms applicable to a single tunnel corresponding 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]

INTERNET DRAFT                                                 July 2001


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 of the optional ILMI 4.0 extensions documented in [ILMIA]. This
   provides comparable information to the IEs used for control plane
   connection establishment.


4. Multi-Protocol Encapsulation

   This specification uses the principles, terminology, and frame
   structure described in "Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM
   Adaptation Layer 5" [RFC2684]. The purpose 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]

INTERNET DRAFT                                                 July 2001


   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]

INTERNET DRAFT                                                 July 2001


   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 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 is the AAL5
   payload without an LLC header.  This is sometimes called "Null
   encapsulation."



















Davison, Lin, Singh, Stephens, Turner, Tio, Nanji               [Page6]

INTERNET DRAFT                                                 July 2001


   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 to user information.  The field has no function
   under the multi-protocol ATM encapsulation and MAY be set to any
   value.

   The CPI (Common Part Indicator) field aligns the CPCS-PDU trailer 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]

INTERNET DRAFT                                                 July 2001


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 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 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 be able
   to accept the use of either encapsulation technique.

   When originating an LLC encapsulated call that is to carry an L2TP
   payload, the [Q.2931] B-LLI IE user information layer 2 protocol
   field SHALL be encoded 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, the [Q.2931] B-LLI IE user information layer 2 protocol
   field SHALL be encoded to select no layer 2 protocol in octet 6 and
   layer 3 protocol field SHALL 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 by 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 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]

INTERNET DRAFT                                                 July 2001


   If an SVC tunnel is reset in accordance with section 4.1 of
   [RFC2661], both ends MUST clear the SVC.  Any user sessions on the
   tunnel will be terminated by the reset.  Either end MAY attempt 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 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 in the base L2TP specification [RFC2661].


10. Acknowledgments

   This Internet Draft draws heavily 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]

INTERNET DRAFT                                                 July 2001


   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 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 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 for IP over ATM - UNI
   Signalling 4.0 Update", RFC 2331, April 1998.

   [DSLF037] DSL Forum Technical Report TR-037, "Auto-Configuration 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]

INTERNET DRAFT                                                 July 2001


   Specification Version 4.0", af-sig-0061.000, finalized July 1996;
   available at ftp://ftp.atmforum.com/pub.

   [DUBR] ATM Forum, "Addendum to TM 4.1: Differentiated UBR", af-
   tm-0149.000, finalized July, 2000; available at
   ftp://ftp.atmforum.com/pub

   [ILMIA] ATM Forum, "Addendum 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]

INTERNET DRAFT                                                 July 2001


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]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/