Keyed IPv6 Tunnel
draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel-04

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (l2tpext WG)
Last updated 2015-06-29 (latest revision 2015-03-09)
Replaces draft-mkonstan-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
Document shepherd Carlos Pignataro
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel.shepherd@ietf.org, cpignata@cisco.com, draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel@ietf.org, l2tpext-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel.ad@ietf.org
L2TPEXT Working Group                            M. Konstantynowicz, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                             G. Heron, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track                           Cisco Systems
Expires: September 10, 2015                                R. Schatzmayr
                                                     Deutsche Telekom AG
                                                           W. Henderickx
                                                    Alcatel-Lucent, Inc.
                                                           March 9, 2015

                           Keyed IPv6 Tunnel
                draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel-04

Abstract

   This document describes a simple L2 Ethernet over IPv6 tunnel
   encapsulation with mandatory 64-bit cookie for connecting L2 Ethernet
   attachment circuits identified by IPv6 addresses.  The encapsulation
   is based on L2TPv3 over IP.

Requirements Language

   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 RFC2119 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Konstantynowicz, et al.Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                                                March 2015

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Static 1:1 Mapping Without a Control Plane  . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  64-bit Cookie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Fragmentation and Reassembly  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  OAM Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  Contributing Authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   L2TPv3, as defined in [RFC3931], provides a dynamic mechanism for
   tunneling Layer 2 (L2) "circuits" across a packet-oriented data
   network (e.g., over IP), with multiple attachment circuits
   multiplexed over a single pair of IP address endpoints (i.e. a
   tunnel) using the L2TPv3 session ID as a circuit discriminator.

   Implementing L2TPv3 over IPv6 [RFC2460] provides the opportunity to
   utilize unique IPv6 addresses to identify Ethernet attachment
   circuits directly, leveraging the key property that IPv6 offers, a
   vast number of unique IP addresses.  In this case, processing of the
   L2TPv3 Session ID may be bypassed upon receipt as each tunnel has one
   and only one associated session.  This local optimization does not
   hinder the ability to continue supporting the multiplexing of
   circuits via the Session ID on the same router for other L2TPv3
   tunnels.

Konstantynowicz, et al.Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                                                March 2015

2.  Static 1:1 Mapping Without a Control Plane

   Static local configuration creates a one-to-one mapping between the
   access-side L2 attachment circuit and the IP address used in the
Show full document text