Re: [Pals] [Int-area] L2TP sequencing: Commonly disabled for IP data? Or always?

Stewart Bryant <> Fri, 04 June 2021 15:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2D4A3A157A; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 08:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YyWNNGGSxVhv; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 08:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::429]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3696B3A1579; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 08:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f2so9619461wri.11; Fri, 04 Jun 2021 08:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=eR1M8wGpbZpKZyV+qnR6HMeMBGidyBgEfexyYvnKt1Y=; b=ucWbiJpfIpOSGIznZC60KfrOSc2wEeTQ5JZuqcA5ueEee6lyoAffKRn8+fdAQN+tjS Zxa0bpE1LvLkK0AJXxd7k4GL6miL/bsHxS0T0PBtnNzetHKETRCbTugZ6gD1bpr61NtD H7TOwCb5ReO5wFTEKcR5qzQarxEO7UDKidBAyIxEHVoxj/I3Jr93IwaRvbW9RA8lGuwS TEnxOc+nQifhRf/ngXNthD5wU9qBwmfroLectmj7X6dO4D51bz7mffkxC5JruBlg/tSP Abe8t0nCFuwXDiEfeBMidWJywyEHUNElHSeyQS6W//D8LkFzYdJnxK9TWpJKFWiusdnf MC4w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=eR1M8wGpbZpKZyV+qnR6HMeMBGidyBgEfexyYvnKt1Y=; b=SjmCoCMwbewFiRNJa+7Lo2xafwSA1jVGBY/SlQ/23SlKNA1bRvdLHriqoHOjC9KijO IOixRAbClLHJfyEM4H01aDB0HK85/s8jaVxqfaiA1HTJmQaGDnr6qolHfhGxmXm0wDJY aYFXDYJMQ8IfPzcup8BdSQFSU2V1Qw4py1Z11Yw8KR0aiTqhYzgkFlYyf56gnlg+4LjO lhj3Qq+DshpFBXsGftVYNbaOAmhZPuFbhUZBRGbHRrp/pMJvOFAG5O0L26kdNaCqlek+ WGXC+GeqYBLzMyHzdVfzdXW6YxVCR+OHFjpH6D6lhNoQjm080wHfDayOPxOvF2C85lTJ MUJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531jAChUhlyuB+/TA4kcHsAk2ybel3qOZyKrjY1kdZkLxTPbwoVe rqJmi1wSHnqmCYeqeNAdhZE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx0v3WadGpns2Gh1Q9GzNBHPD+D8OSICX1PBIFgaC58o0HwExZnNRuuCRRw4FDPb7FfZgv2WA==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:fdcd:: with SMTP id i13mr4472832wrs.307.1622819232961; Fri, 04 Jun 2021 08:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2a00:23c5:3395:c901:b469:536c:166a:181b? ([2a00:23c5:3395:c901:b469:536c:166a:181b]) by with ESMTPSA id d3sm6681318wrs.41.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Jun 2021 08:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stewart Bryant <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C775A729-BCCC-45A1-9D9E-78C84EBD0ECA"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:07:10 +0100
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Stewart Bryant <>, intarea IETF list <>, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <>, Ignacio Goyret <>
To: Bob Briscoe <>,
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Pals] [Int-area] L2TP sequencing: Commonly disabled for IP data? Or always?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 15:07:22 -0000

Adding PALS and someone there may know.


> On 4 Jun 2021, at 15:13, Bob Briscoe <> wrote:
> Int-area list,
> I'm looking for experience on common L2TP practice, most likely from operators. I tried sending this query to the <> list, as advised by Carlos Pignataro, but apparently it no longer exists. So I think int-area is the "list of last resort" for this.
> The L2TP RFC says sequencing /can/ be disabled for IP data, but it doesn't say SHOULD or MUST. Is it possible that some operators enable L2TP sequencing for IP data? And if so, do you know why they would? Also, are you aware of any other types of tunnel that might try to keep IP data packets in sequence?
> My reason for asking: 
> We (in tsvwg) are working on active queue management technology. Certain AQM schemes (e.g. FQ-CoDel, L4S) give lower delay to a subset of traffic. If the bottleneck queue supports such an AQM and it is within an L2TP tunnel with sequencing enabled, the egress would hold back all the nice low delay packets until it can put them back into order with the higher delay traffic.
> We intend to advise that operators MUST disable L2TP sequencing if they wish to deploy these AQMs within an L2TP tunnel. So we need to know:
> Whether this will create a dilemma for any operators who need L2TP sequencing of IP data for some reason;
> Or whether we even need to bother giving the advice, because no operator would ever enable L2TP sequencing of IP data anyway.
> Obviously, some operators already use existing technologies like Diffserv to reduce delay for a subset of IP data traffic, so I assume they always disable L2TP sequencing anyway. 
> Regards
> Bob Briscoe
> -- 
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoe                      <>_______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list