Re: l2f and Cisco???

David Carrel <carrel@cisco.com> Thu, 20 June 1996 17:38 UTC

Message-Id: <199606201741.KAA03189@stilton.cisco.com>
To: Robert Moskowitz <rgm3@chrysler.com>
Cc: ipsec@TIS.COM
Subject: Re: l2f and Cisco???
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Jun 1996 10:54:19 EDT." <2.2.32.19960620145419.00b74e04@pop3hub.is.chrysler.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Id: <3185.835292491.1@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 10:41:32 -0700
From: David Carrel <carrel@cisco.com>
Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

> Pointcast had a press release from last night from Cisco, Nortell, and Shiva
> announcing 'layer two forwarding' that they had submitted to the IETF for a
> standard.
> 
> Can the Cisco and other members here comment on what l2f gives over ipsec?
> Why should l2f become more than an informational RFC and why even is it neede
>       d?

Bob,

L2F and IPSEC play very different roles.  In fact the two can be used
together to play a quite useful role.  l2f provides for tunneling of remote
access users to a central location so their connectivity appears similar no
matter what access point they use.  (ie. if I dialed into ANY of my service
providers dialup pools, in any city, I would still get the same network
connectivity as if I dialed into cisco directly.)  Another benefit is the
MUXing of multiple users over a single (presumably lower cost) long haul
link (internet, frame relay, ...).

This protocol (and another called PPTP) are being discussed on the ppp list
	<ietf-ppp@MERIT.EDU>

Dave

l2f and Cisco??? Robert Moskowitz
Re: l2f and Cisco??? Paul Ferguson
Re: l2f and Cisco??? David Carrel