Evan Caves wrote:
>
> W. Mark Townsley wrote:
>
> >Hi Walter.
> >
> >The L2TP MIB we have today, which for the record is the MIB for RFC2661 L2TP
> >over IPv4, has available for extensive review by this group as well as the MIB
> >Doctors whose time is not easy to come by and blessing sometimes difficult to
> >achieve. It has been a long and tedious process that I would hate to turn on its
> >ear at this point and try to repeat from square zero.
> >
> >As you have mentioned, L2TPv3 will require significant MIB changes in order to
> >support multiple L2 transports.
> >
> I think you mean different payloads. The MIB in its current form is
> structured to support multiple L2 transports. I
> would suspect that the effort involved is about the same as it was
> tearing apart the L2TP protocol spec to
> create base and payload specs.
I was referring to tunneling of L2 things other than PPP.
There have been a dozen different names for this, sorry for the ambiguity... And
I really should know better than to use the word "transport" ... I suppose the
preferred name is "Pseudowire."
- Mark
>
> evan
> -
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
