分享
 
 
 

RFC3145 - L2TP Disconnect Cause Information

王朝other·作者佚名  2008-05-31
窄屏简体版  字體: |||超大  

Network Working Group R. Verma

Request for Comments: 3145 Deloitte Consulting

Category: Standards Track M. Verma

3Com Corporation

J. Carlson

Sun Microsystems

July 2001

L2TP Disconnect Cause Information

Status of this Memo

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the

Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for

improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet

Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state

and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

This document provides an extension to the Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol

("L2TP"), a mechanism for tunneling Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)

sessions. L2TP lacks a mechanism for a host to provide PPP-related

disconnect cause information to another host. This information,

provided by the extension described in this document, can be useful

for accounting and debugging purposes.

1. IntrodUCtion

L2TP [1] defines a general-purpose mechanism for tunneling PPP over

various media. By design, it insulates L2TP operation from the

details of the PPP session that is being encapsulated by L2TP. There

are, however, cases where it may be desirable for PPP-specific

disconnect information to be provided to an L2TP host (L2TP Access

Concentrator [LAC] or L2TP Network Server [LNS]) in a descriptive

format. The lack of this information is especially a problem when

the LAC and LNS are not owned or managed by the same entities.

The Result and Error Codes defined for L2TP specify only L2TP-

specific disconnect information. This document provides an

additional Attribute Value Pair (AVP), called PPP Disconnect Cause

Code, that MAY be used by an L2TP host to provide PPP-specific

disconnect information to its peer. This AVP should be used in

conjunction with, and not as a replacement for, the L2TP Result and

Error Code AVPs.

The PPP Disconnect Cause Code AVP can also be used to provide a

human-readable disconnect reason to the user. This AVP should not

have any effect on either the functioning of the tunnel or the

functioning of the PPP session; it is for informational and logging

purposes only.

The key Words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",

"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this

document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [2].

2. PPP Disconnect Cause Code AVP

The AVP is valid in the L2TP Call-Disconnect-Notify (CDN) message

only, and it MUST NOT be marked Mandatory.

The PPP Disconnect Cause Code AVP is encoded with Vendor ID 0 and an

Attribute Type of PPP Disconnect Cause Code (46). The length of the

Value field MUST be at least 11 octets. If the length is more than

11 octets, the additional octets MUST contain a descriptive text in

UTF-8 [3] format that can be displayed to the user or in a log file.

The format of the AVP is shown below.

0 1 2 3

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

MH rsvd Length Vendor ID

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Attribute Type Disconnect Code

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Control Protocol Number Direction Message...

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Figure 1: PPP Disconnect Cause Code AVP

Mandatory (M) bit: MUST be 0.

Hidden (H) bit: MAY be 1 if the attribute is hidden.

Length: The length of the entire attribute in octets, eXPressed as a

single octet. The length MUST be at least 11.

Vendor ID: A two octet value in network byte order; set to 0 to

indicate that this is an IETF-assigned attribute.

Attribute Type: A two octet value in network byte order; set to 46

(PPP Disconnect Cause Code).

Disconnect Code: A two octet value in network byte order. (Described

in section 3 of this document.)

Control Protocol Number: The PPP Control Protocol number of the

primary protocol known to have caused the error, if any. This field

may be 0 unless mentioned otherwise in the description of the

Disconnect Codes in section 3.

Direction: A single octet value; specifies the direction in which the

Disconnect Code applies.

The valid values of this field are:

0: global error

1: at peer

2: at local

3-255: Reserved

This field SHOULD be 0 unless documented otherwise in the description

of the specific Disconnect Code.

3. Disconnect Codes

This section contains the list of well-known values of the Disconnect

Code field in the PPP Disconnect Cause Code AVP. The IANA will

maintain a registry of the up-to-date values (see section 5 of this

document). These values should be used in conjunction with the

Direction value and the Control Protocol Number field to interpret

the specific error condition.

Unless documented otherwise for a specific Disconnect Code, the

Direction value SHOULD be 0.

3.1. Global Errors

The global error codes, given in the list below, are Disconnect Codes

that do not relate to one particular PPP Control Protocol. The

Control Protocol Number for these errors thus MUST be set to 0.

0 No information available.

1 Administrative disconnect.

2 Link Control Protocol (LCP) renegotiation at LNS disabled; LNS

expects proxy LCP information, LAC did not send it.

3 Normal Disconnection, LCP Terminate-Request sent.

Valid Direction values are:

1: LCP Terminate-Request sent by peer

2: LCP Terminate-Request sent by local

4 Compulsory encryption required by a PPP peer was refused by the

other.

Valid Direction values are:

1: Required by local; refused by peer

2: Required by peer; refused by local

3.2. LCP Errors

The LCP error codes, listed below, are disconnect reasons that are

directly related to the failure of PPP peers to negotiate mutually

agreeable link parameters. The Control Protocol Number for these

errors MUST be set to C021 hexadecimal (LCP).

5 FSM (Finite State Machine) Timeout error. (PPP event "TO-".)

6 No recognizable LCP packets were received.

7 LCP failure: Magic Number error; link possibly looped back.

8 LCP link failure: Echo Request timeout.

9 Peer has unexpected Endpoint-Discriminator for existing

Multilink PPP (MP) bundle.

10 Peer has unexpected MRRU for existing MP bundle.

11 Peer has unexpected Short-Sequence-Number option for existing

MP bundle.

12 Compulsory call-back required by a PPP peer was refused by the

other.

Valid Direction values are:

1: Required by local; refused by peer

2: Required by peer; refused by local

3.3. Authentication Errors

The authentication error codes, listed below, are disconnect reasons

that are directly related to authentication failures between the PPP

peers. The Control Protocol Number for such errors MUST correspond

to the PPP Control Protocol number for the authentication protocol in

use.

13 FSM Timeout error.

14 Peer has unexpected authenticated name for existing MP bundle.

15 PPP authentication failure: Authentication protocol

unacceptable.

Valid Direction values are:

1: All local authentication protocols were rejected by the

peer.

2: All authentication protocols requested by peer were

unacceptable or unimplemented locally.

16 PPP authentication failure: Authentication failed (bad name,

password, or secret).

Valid Direction values are:

1: Authentication of peer identity by local system.

2: Authentication of local identity by peer system.

3.4. Network Control Protocol (NCP) Errors

NCP Errors are disconnect reasons that are directly related to the

failure of PPP peers to negotiate a mutually agreeable set of

parameters for the network protocols. The Control Protocol Number

for such errors SHOULD correspond to the PPP Network Control Protocol

number in use. Where multiple network protocols are in use, multiple

copies of this AVP MAY be given to indicate failure reasons for each

NCP. Otherwise, if only one copy of the AVP is given, the Control

Protocol Number SHOULD correspond to the last (most recent) failing

NCP.

17 FSM Timeout error.

18 No NCPs available (all disabled or rejected); no NCPs went to

Opened state. (Control Protocol Number may be zero only if

neither peer has enabled NCPs.)

19 NCP failure: failed to converge on acceptable addresses.

Valid Direction values are:

1: Too many Configure-Naks received from peer.

2: Too many Configure-Naks sent to peer.

20 NCP failure: user not permitted to use any addresses.

Valid Direction values are:

1: Local link address not acceptable to peer.

2: Remote link address not acceptable to local system.

4. Notes

This AVP MAY may be sent by either the LNS or LAC. It is generally

expected that this AVP will be most useful in sending notification

from the LNS to LAC in the compulsory tunneling case, although it is

not precluded from use in any other case.

A draft form of this AVP used Vendor ID 43 (3Com Corporation) and

vendor-specific Attribute Type 46. Implementations MAY accept AVPs

with these values as equivalent to the message described in this

document, but SHOULD NOT transmit an AVP using these values.

5. Security Considerations

The integrity and confidentiality of this AVP relies on the

underlying L2TP security mechanisms. It is intended for logging and

diagnostic purposes in the event of PPP link failure and should not

pose a threat to system security, but the AVP MAY be hidden as

described in section 4.3 of RFC2661.

The defined extension does not provide information that would be

useful to an attacker. Future extensions should not be defined to

lessen security. For instance, it is inappropriate to provide

distinguishing information that would inform the peer that a given

authentication name is correct, but the password/secret is incorrect.

6. IANA Considerations

IANA has assigned an L2TP Attribute Type value of 46 for the PPP

Disconnect Cause Code defined in Section 2.

This AVP includes an enumerated cause code value, called the

"Disconnect Code." Values 0 through 20 are described in this

document. Values 21 through 32767 (inclusive) are assigned by the

IANA subject to IESG Approval. Values 32768 through 65279

(inclusive) are assigned by the IANA on a First Come First Served

basis, and are intended for vendor-specific features. Values 65280

through 65535 (inclusive) are allocated for Private or Experimental

Use, and no assignment through the IANA is expected.

7. References

[1] Townsley, W., Valencia, A., Rubens, A., Pall, G., Zorn, G. and B.

Palter, "Layer 2 Tunnel Protocol (L2TP)", RFC2661, August 1999.

[2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement

Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.

[3] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", RFC

2279, January 1998.

8. Acknowledgments

The authors thank W. Mark Townsley and Thomas Narten for their

comments and help.

9. Contacts

9.1. L2TP Working Group Chair

W. Mark Townsley

Cisco Systems

7025 Kit Creek Road

PO Box 14987

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

EMail: townsley@cisco.com

9.2. Authors' Addresses

Rohit Verma

180 N. Stetson Avenue

Chicago IL 60601

Phone: +1 312 374 2475

Fax: +1 312 870 2475

EMail: rverma@dc.com

Madhvi Verma

3800 Golf Road

Rolling Meadows IL 60008

Phone: +1 847 262 2987

Fax: +1 847 262 2255

EMail: Madhvi_Verma@3com.com

James Carlson

Sun Microsystems

1 Network Drive MS UBUR02-212

Burlington MA 01803-2757

Phone: +1 781 442 2084

Fax: +1 781 442 1677

EMail: james.d.carlson@sun.com

10. Standard Notices

10.1. IETF Intellectual Property Statement

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any

intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to

pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in

this document or the extent to which any license under such rights

might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it

has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the

IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and

standards-related documentation can be found in BCP 11. Copies of

claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of

licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to

oBTain a general license or permission for the use of such

proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can

be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any

copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary

rights, which may cover technology that, may be required to practice

this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive

Director.

Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to

others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it

or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published

and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any

kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are

included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this

document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing

the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other

Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of

developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for

copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be

followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than

English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be

revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an

"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING

TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING

BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION

HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF

MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFCEditor function is currently provided by the

Internet Society.

 
 
 
免责声明:本文为网络用户发布,其观点仅代表作者个人观点,与本站无关,本站仅提供信息存储服务。文中陈述内容未经本站证实,其真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。
2023年上半年GDP全球前十五强
 百态   2023-10-24
美众议院议长启动对拜登的弹劾调查
 百态   2023-09-13
上海、济南、武汉等多地出现不明坠落物
 探索   2023-09-06
印度或要将国名改为“巴拉特”
 百态   2023-09-06
男子为女友送行,买票不登机被捕
 百态   2023-08-20
手机地震预警功能怎么开?
 干货   2023-08-06
女子4年卖2套房花700多万做美容:不但没变美脸,面部还出现变形
 百态   2023-08-04
住户一楼被水淹 还冲来8头猪
 百态   2023-07-31
女子体内爬出大量瓜子状活虫
 百态   2023-07-25
地球连续35年收到神秘规律性信号,网友:不要回答!
 探索   2023-07-21
全球镓价格本周大涨27%
 探索   2023-07-09
钱都流向了那些不缺钱的人,苦都留给了能吃苦的人
 探索   2023-07-02
倩女手游刀客魅者强控制(强混乱强眩晕强睡眠)和对应控制抗性的关系
 百态   2020-08-20
美国5月9日最新疫情:美国确诊人数突破131万
 百态   2020-05-09
荷兰政府宣布将集体辞职
 干货   2020-04-30
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案逍遥观:鹏程万里
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案神机营:射石饮羽
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案昆仑山:拔刀相助
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案天工阁:鬼斧神工
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案丝路古道:单枪匹马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:与虎谋皮
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:李代桃僵
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:指鹿为马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:小鸟依人
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:千金买邻
 干货   2019-11-12
 
推荐阅读
 
 
 
>>返回首頁<<
 
靜靜地坐在廢墟上,四周的荒凉一望無際,忽然覺得,淒涼也很美
© 2005- 王朝網路 版權所有