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

Joel Halpern Direct <> Wed, 09 June 2021 13:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 846153A15B5; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 06:10:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XSLMOuGp45JY; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 06:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 847F43A1597; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 06:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4G0SBq0zC5z6GBNh; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 06:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=2.tigertech; t=1623244211; bh=WoA36yMskWLVsk4yvz8MOGk+0bi4rj5A9V6tC2zPPGg=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=XQPqosICiFoY1RVGcBM554oeBFzqc1QxGaYQHZhx/8DQggQpvovcFpSl2hf+cLiOm Jxit1Velr8bTGZQ+FrhblF2evv73a7KhwmauVtxqNRzeUoTOlmP13pKZt0aqojK5aO irYx7voMng/wL+BccT8SMSTIZ+7geVkKmfr6B268=
X-Quarantine-ID: <TMgnBfntPb9h>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4G0SBn4thhz6GBBZ; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 06:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
To: Stewart Bryant <>, Joel Halpern <>
Cc: "Andrew G. Malis" <>,, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <>, Ignacio Goyret <>, intarea IETF list <>, Derek Fawcus <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Joel Halpern Direct <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 09:10:08 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 13:10:17 -0000

BNGs are still a big busienss.  And BNG resale /emote control uses L2TP 
in many cases.  The BBF has been working on (and published a first 
version of) protocol for control of split BNG.  L2TP is commonly used 
for these use cases.


On 6/9/2021 7:50 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> Which applications still use it Joel?
> Stewart
>> On 9 Jun 2021, at 12:42, Joel M. Halpern <> wrote:
>> There is plenty of L2TP still in use.
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>> On 6/9/2021 6:23 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>>> Sequence number checking in the forwarder is always a problem because it is stateful so I doubt that many high-scale or high-speed forwarders ever did this.
>>> I think there is an undisclosed assumption that go up enough levels and its IP so sequence number checking in the transport network (as opposed to the transport layer) is not really needed.
>>> I doubt that there is much L2TP still out there. It was in its prime with dialup modems. L2TPv3 which was intended to replace it became niche with, as Andy says, operators who did not want MPLS. Much of what L2TPv3 was intended for was actually done with PW over MPLS with some replacement with by Mac in Mac for cost reasons.
>>> If Carlos does not know the answer, Mark T would be my next port of call.
>>> Stewart
>>>> On 8 Jun 2021, at 22:41, Andrew G. Malis < <>> wrote:
>>>> Bob,
>>>> In addition to the cases listed by Derek, L2TPv3 can also carry non-IP pseudowire data, such as Ethernet frames (see RFC 4719 for example). Even though 4719 says that sequencing is optional, I would certainly recommend it :-).
>>>> But I guess that's really not what you were asking about, since you specifically mentioned IP data. But it is a case where you would probably see sequencing in use.
>>>> Back in the day, Sprint made good use of Ethernet over L2TPv3, as they were in the anti-MPLS camp at the time. But that's water over the bridge, and I really don't know if this solution continues to be in active use. Mark Townsley might know.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Andy
>>>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 10:07 AM Derek Fawcus < <>> wrote:
>>>>     On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 03:13:15PM +0100, Bob Briscoe wrote:
>>>>     > 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?
>>>>     How many intermediate headers are you considering between L2TP and
>>>>     where
>>>>     a carried IP header may exist?
>>>>     Maybe I'm getting the wrong end of the stick, but surely this engages
>>>>     the text from section 5.4 of RFC 2661:
>>>>       "For example, if the PPP session being tunneled is not
>>>>        utilizing any stateful compression or encryption protocols and is
>>>>        only carrying IP (as determined by the PPP NCPs that are
>>>>        established), then the LNS might decide to disable sequencing as IP
>>>>        is tolerant to datagram loss and reordering."
>>>>     This would then suggest if L2TP is carrying PPP, the PPP session
>>>>     is not
>>>>     multi-link, and is making use of compression (including one of the
>>>>     versions of IP header compression) in some form for IP packets, then
>>>>     reordering will impact the ability to decompress.
>>>>     So such an L2TP data session may well make use of sequence numbers to
>>>>     prevent reordering.
>>>>     I guess similarly in L2TPv3 when the PW is for PPP, and possibly also
>>>>     the fragmentation scheme in RFC 4623 which requires sequence numbers;
>>>>     and such PWE3 links could ultimately be carrying IP packets.
>>>>     DF
>>>>     (not an operator)
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     Int-area mailing list
>>>> <>
>>>>     <>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Int-area mailing list
>>>> <>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Int-area mailing list