Subject: RE: PPP-Mux and ML-PPP-Re-send

From: "Stacy Nichols (Ottawa)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 12:19:14 -0700

Re-Send as some of you may not have got the first one
(I got 3 NACKs).

			Stace

-----Original Message-----
From: Stacy Nichols (Ottawa) 
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 3:08 PM
To: 'James Carlson'; Stacy Nichols (Ottawa)
Cc: Craig Fox; Ali Irfan-FIA225; [email-masked]'; Pazhyannur
Rajesh-QA6283
Subject: RE: PPP-Mux and ML-PPP

I think we are in agreement.

I would suggest (possibly) a two level negotiation.
LCP for the link and then NCP for the bundle.

Also from a hardware perspective, RFC-1990 allows any
PID to be encapsulated. I am not sure why PPP-MUX would be 
any different.

			Stace

-----Original Message-----
From: James Carlson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 2:53 PM
To: Stacy Nichols (Ottawa)
Cc: Craig Fox; Ali Irfan-FIA225; [email-masked]'; Pazhyannur
Rajesh-QA6283
Subject: RE: PPP-Mux and ML-PPP

Stacy Nichols (Ottawa) writes:
> 	1) PPP-Mux and ML-PPP should be orthogonal. That is 
> 	   We should be able to perform PPP-Mux on a single 
> 	   link of a Multi-link bundle. This is consistent with 
> 	   RFC-1990 which permits single-link and multi-link traffic 
> 	   on the same link.

OK, then what do you do if you want PPPMux at the bundle level?  I'd
be happy with the current proposal (negotiate PPPMux at LCP) if we do
NOT allow PPPMux to appear within a reassembled multilink frame.

Otherwise, I'd rather see a new NCP.  (I think a new NCP is cleaner in
any case, but the LCP option is already there ...)

I'd also be happy if we just said that MP and PPPMux may not be used
at the same time on the same link.  Period.  You pick one or the
other.

> 	2) LCP negotiation should be used for PPP-Mux (out on a limb here).
> 	   I think it gets trickier when we merge the two capabilities.
> 	   Do we need to negotiate link capabilities (PPP-Mux, ML-PPP) 
> 	   and then negotiate combinations in follow on LCP/NCP messages.

Only if we don't resolve the existing ambiguity in an explicit way.

(There should also be definitions for where PPPMux appears with
respect to CCP and ECP.  ECP is probably a bit more troublesome.)

Again, to keep the current model, PPPMux should appear as the
outermost protocol number only.  Not inside a decrypted packet, not
inside a decompressed packet, and not inside a reassembled MP packet.

> P.S. how do I subscribe to the mailing lists.

Send mail to:

	[email-masked]

See http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pppext-charter.html for more
information.

-- 
James Carlson, Internet Engineering       <[email-masked]>
SUN Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.234W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.497N   Fax +1 781 442 1677
"PPP Design and Debugging" --- http://people.ne.mediaone.net/carlson/ppp