Int-area list,
I'm looking for experience on common L2TP practice, most likely from
operators. I tried sending this query to the [email protected] list, as
advised by Carlos Pignataro, but apparently it no longer exists. So I
think int-area is the "list of last resort" for this.
The L2TP RFC says sequencing /can/ be disabled for IP data, but it
doesn't say SHOULD or MUST. Is it possible that some operators enable
L2TP sequencing for IP data? And if so, do you know why they would?
Also, are you aware of any other types of tunnel that might try to keep
IP data packets in sequence?
My reason for asking:
We (in tsvwg) are working on active queue management technology. Certain
AQM schemes (e.g. FQ-CoDel, L4S) give lower delay to a subset of
traffic. If the bottleneck queue supports such an AQM and it is within
an L2TP tunnel with sequencing enabled, the egress would hold back all
the nice low delay packets until it can put them back into order with
the higher delay traffic.
We intend to advise that operators MUST disable L2TP sequencing if they
wish to deploy these AQMs within an L2TP tunnel. So we need to know:
1. Whether this will create a dilemma for any operators who need L2TP
sequencing of IP data for some reason;
2. Or whether we even need to bother giving the advice, because no
operator would ever enable L2TP sequencing of IP data anyway.
Obviously, some operators already use existing technologies like
Diffserv to reduce delay for a subset of IP data traffic, so I assume
they always disable L2TP sequencing anyway.
Regards
Bob Briscoe
--
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoehttp://bobbriscoe.net/
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
