Steven Barth wrote: > I renamed the xl2tpd netifd protocol to "l2tpv2" and kept the l2tpv3 as > "l2tp" as documented in the wiki.
Thanks :) On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 08:47:58AM +0200, Dirk Neukirchen wrote: > > The config are totally different, the problem is really a name clash. > > It seems they are doing things differently > xl2tpd is RFC2661 > (https://github.com/xelerance/xl2tpd/blob/master/README.xl2tpd) > l2tpv3 is RFC5641 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5641) > changes are in: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3931#section-1.1 Yes, L2TPv2 and L2TPv3 are quite different. L2TPv2 is tightly coupled with PPP, while L2TPv3 allows static tunnels. > I wrote something about l2tpv3tun earlier,see : > http://patchwork.openwrt.org/patch/4891/ > Arguments for using iproute2 instead of l2tpv3tun might still apply Interesting, I didn't know iproute could handle static L2TP tunnels. In the case of L2TPv2, a daemon is needed to handle the PPP part. On a related note, there is a large amount of code duplication in network scripts when dealing with PPP (ppp, pppoe, pppoa, pptp and l2tpv2 protocols).
pgplchUzv74W8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
