Subject: RE: [L2CP] L2C Encapsulation using GSMP RFC3293 Framework

From: "Pramod Kaluskar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:45:16 -0500

Thomas,

I agree that in order to converge between ATM and Ethernet networks - it
might be a good idea to have a single consistent encapsulation over ATM
(as defined in RFC 2684).

I checked RFC2684 and find that there are indeed two ways possible ways
of encoding this:

1.	Routed with LLC / SNAP of 0xAA-AA-03-00-00-00 followed by
Ethertype of 0x88-0C
2.	Bridged as a Ethernet packet with Ethertype of 0x88-0C

(2) can be used if we know that the packet is going to be "tunneled"
across an ATM network into an Ethernet network and that the switch has
an Ethernet interface.  If this is not known or if the switch uses some
other L2 protocol but has a known IP-address, we could use the routed
encapsulation over ATM.

Regards,

Pramod

____________________________________________ 
Pramod Kaluskar                                                 Tel:
732-345-6234

Conexant Systems, Inc.  100 Schulz Dr, Red Bank, NJ 07701, USA

________________________________

From: Haag, T [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 11:20 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Busser, M; Meyer04, Klaus
Subject: [L2CP] L2C Encapsulation using GSMP RFC3293 Framework 

All,

Running Layer 2 Control in ATM and Ethernet based networks should base
on common requirements like RFC3293.

The document talks about three different types of encapsulation which
have different draw backs.

 - GSMP Packet Encapsulation for ATM (section 2)

   VPI=0/VCI=15; preferred value would be VPI=254; VCI=32...
   No MAC address needed

- GSMP Packet Encapsulation for Ethernet (section 3)
  MAC Address needed

- GSMP Packet Encapsulation for TCP (section 4)
  No MAC Address needed; But additional IPsec for security 

To be consistent by operating parallel ATM and Ethernet in networks the
encapsulation should be done similar for all Types.

I think it should be investigated to run GSMP packets over bridged
encapsulation via ATM according RFC2684 using MAC addresses for
detection of Layer 2 Control sender instance, and receiver instance.
This would enable to run GSMP Ethernet Packet Encapsulation on Top of
ATM using the same sender and receiver assignment.

Regards

Thomas Haag

********************** Legal Disclaimer ****************************
"This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Any unauthorized review, use or distribution by others is strictly prohibited.  If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. Thank you."
**********************************************************************

_______________________________________________
L2cp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:22:21 +0100

Hi all,

[email-masked] wrote:
> (2) can be used if we know that the packet is going to be “tunneled” 
across an ATM network into an 
> Ethernet network and that the switch has an Ethernet interface.  If this 
is not known or if the switch 
> uses some other L2 protocol but has a known IP-address, we could use the 
routed encapsulation over 
> ATM.

Today, L2CP is only envisaged with GSMP on top of TCP/IP.
I understand that other GSMP encapsulation modes are desirable as well: 
not only existing standard ones 
but also possibly new ones. Reasons for this can be multiple, e.g. better 
scaling on BRAS...

When several GSMP encapsulations are possible, I assume that settling 
about which one will be used 
between a "switch" and a "controller" is a normal business issue for GSMP 
implementations - nothing special 
for L2CP - right ?

Not sure what usual GSMP practices are in general but I can think about 
the following alternatives:

1) for "switch" and "controller" supporting only one encapsulation: 
       -> having the operator(s) just deploying compatible machines...

2) for "switch" and "controller" supporting several GSMP encapsulations, 
     a) -> having the operator(s) statically configuring "switch" and 
"controller" with a 
          unique & common encapsulation 
     b) -> automatic selection: "switch" and "controller" try to establish 
adjacency using 
         all their supported encapsulations until they hook with each 
other.

I think that the 1),  2)a) and 2)b) alternatives can safely be left to 
vendor featuring and operator 
selection - no need for standardization here.

If we agree on this, I guess we'll have free hands to elaborate any 
additional/new GSMP encapsulation 
when used for L2CP, without fear for compatibility problem...

What is your opinion, is my view correct ?

Thanks,
Kind regards,
Robert

"Pramod Kaluskar" <[email-masked]>
02/24/2006 08:45 PM
 
        To:     "Haag, T" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
        cc:     "Busser, M" <[email-masked]>, "Meyer04, 
Klaus" <[email-masked]>
        Subject:        RE: [L2CP] L2C Encapsulation using GSMP RFC3293 
Framework

Thomas,
 
I agree that in order to converge between ATM and Ethernet networks – it 
might be a good idea to have a single consistent encapsulation over ATM 
(as defined in RFC 2684).
 
I checked RFC2684 and find that there are indeed two ways possible ways of 
encoding this:

(2) can be used if we know that the packet is going to be “tunneled” 
across an ATM network into an Ethernet network and that the switch has an 
Ethernet interface.  If this is not known or if the switch uses some other 
L2 protocol but has a known IP-address, we could use the routed 
encapsulation over ATM.
 
Regards,
Pramod

All,
Running Layer 2 Control in ATM and Ethernet based networks should base on 
common requirements like RFC3293.
The document talks about three different types of encapsulation which have 
different draw backs.
 - GSMP Packet Encapsulation for ATM (section 2)

To be consistent by operating parallel ATM and Ethernet in networks the 
encapsulation should be done similar for all Types.
I think it should be investigated to run GSMP packets over bridged 
encapsulation via ATM according RFC2684 using MAC addresses for detection 
of Layer 2 Control sender instance, and receiver instance. This would 
enable to run GSMP Ethernet Packet Encapsulation on Top of ATM using the 
same sender and receiver assignment.
 
Regards
Thomas Haag
********************** Legal Disclaimer **************************** 
"This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole 
use of the intended recipient. Any unauthorized review, use or 
distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received the 
message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the 
message. Thank you." 
********************************************************************** 
_______________________________________________
L2cp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp