[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RFC 2809
- To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
- Subject: RFC 2809
- From: Anj <anj4rfcs@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:23:36 +0530
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=JFaA/CHL7Axtp+9YXMxai/0RokrCMx3+3NMi7mE65iFaauGnCiUkfOIeLCxCxAtkdipHDSq1TCrquFCWL0T3LXFg/e/KV1TPQP7DQyk9daeBoPeg3EF7rxztsNO7KvwIgBk3n9ivhJ9pm7nDE4jWklCSvLDFL1Q3XWPaMx1gY5Q=
- Reply-to: Anj <anj4rfcs@gmail.com>
Hi,
I have following comments related to RFC 2809, L2TP Compulsory
Tunneling via RADIUS.
1. In the sections, 4.1.1, 4.1.2.2 and 4.1.2.3, following text with
slight variations is mentioned.
"...If LCP renegotiation is to be permitted, the NAS
SHOULD NOT send an LCP CONFACK completing LCP negotiation. Rather
than sending an LCP CONFACK, the NAS will instead send an LCP
Configure-Request packet, described in [6]. ..."
As you knew, authentication phase would be started only after the
completion of LCP phase but above cases require authentication phase
to be started. So, I think above statement is not valid.
2. In the diagrams mentioned in sections, 4.1.2.2, 4.1.2.3 and 4.2,
Start-Control-Connection-Connected message should be sent after
receiving Start-Control-Connection-Reply message.
3. Section 5 mentions about Call-Clear-Request message but there is no
such message in L2TP protocol.
-Anj
PS: I didn't check the archive. So, pardon me if I am mentioning the
comments given already.
--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>