Re: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?

[Ari Huttunen <Ari.Huttunen@datafellows.com>]

There are certainly much easier ways for preventing packet re-ordering
than implementing L2TP!

As to your other points.. I defer judgement, but they don't look
serious enough to force using L2TP either. Certainly they weren't
serious enough to be mentioned in Microsoft's document.

Ari

"Shriver, John" wrote:

> L2TP provides the prevention of packet reordering that is REQUIRED by PPP.
> The PPP protocol assumes that packets under it will never be reordered.  PPP
> would not work directly on top of IPSec, since IPSec does not offer a
> service with any assurance of packet ordering.
>
> The optional flow control for L2TP can also be used wisely to provide better
> performance (lower packet loss).
>
> Also, on Windows Dial-Up Networking, it provides a comfortable user model.
> This is not to be taken lightly.

--
Ari Huttunen                   phone: +358 9 859 900
Senior Software Engineer       fax  : +358 9 8599 0452

Data Fellows Corporation       http://www.DataFellows.com

F-Secure products: Integrated Solutions for Enterprise Security

---

References:

• RE: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?
• From: "Shriver, John" <john.shriver@intel.com>

---

• Prev by Date: RE: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?
• Next by Date: IPSec VPN
• Prev by thread: RE: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?
• Next by thread: Re[2]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread