Section 4.4.3) SHOULD be selected in an unpredictable manner rather than sequentially or otherwise. Doing so will help deter hijacking of a session by a malicious user who does not have access to packet traces between the LAC and LNS.
Section 4.4.5). This implies a direct trust relationship of the LAC on behalf of the LNS. If the LNS chooses to implement proxy authentication, it MUST be able to be configured off, requiring a new round a PPP authentication initiated by the LNS (which may or may not include a new round of LCP negotiation). Section 4.1, AVPs contain vendor ID, Attribute and Value fields. For vendor ID value of 0, IANA will maintain a registry
of assigned Attributes and in some case also values. Attributes 0-39 are assigned as defined in Section 4.4. The remaining values are available for assignment through IETF Consensus [RFC 2434]. Section 4.4.1, Message Type AVPs (Attribute Type 0) have an associated value maintained by IANA. Values 0-16 are defined in Section 3.2, the remaining values are available for assignment via IETF Consensus [RFC 2434] Section 4.4.2, Result Code AVPs (Attribute Type 1) contain three fields. Two of these fields (the Result Code and Error Code fields) have associated values maintained by IANA. Section 4.4.2; for the StopCCN message, values 0-11 are defined in the same section. The remaining values of the Result Code field for both messages are available for assignment via IETF Consensus [RFC 2434]. Section 4.4.2. Values 8-32767 are available for assignment via IETF Consensus [RFC 2434]. The remaining values of the Error Code field are available for assignment via First Come First Served [RFC 2434]. Section 4.4.3) both contain 32-bit bitmasks. Additional bits should only be defined via a Standards Action [RFC 2434]. Section 4.4.5, the remaining values are available for assignment via First Come First Served [RFC 2434].
RFC 2434]. [DSS1] ITU-T Recommendation, "Digital subscriber Signaling System No. 1 (DSS 1) - ISDN user-network interface layer 3 specification for basic call control", Rec. Q.931(I.451), May 1998 [KPS] Kaufman, C., Perlman, R., and Speciner, M., "Network Security: Private Communications in a Public World", Prentice Hall, March 1995, ISBN 0-13-061466-1 [RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981. [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. [RFC1144] Jacobson, V., "Compressing TCP/IP Headers for Low-Speed Serial Links", RFC 1144, February 1990. [RFC1661] Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51, RFC 1661, July 1994. [RFC1662] Simpson, W., "PPP in HDLC-like Framing", STD 51, RFC 1662, July 1994. [RFC1663] Rand, D., "PPP Reliable Transmission", RFC 1663, July 1994. [RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC 1700, October 1994. See also: http://www.iana.org/numbers.html [RFC1990] Sklower, K., Lloyd, B., McGregor, G., Carr, D. and T. Coradetti, "The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP)", RFC 1990, August 1996. [RFC1994] Simpson, W., "PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol (CHAP)", RFC 1994, August 1996. [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G. and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2138] Rigney, C., Rubens, A., Simpson, W. and S. Willens, "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2138, April 1997. [RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998. [RFC2341] Valencia, A., Littlewood, M. and T. Kolar, "Cisco Layer Two Forwarding (Protocol) L2F", RFC 2341, May 1998. [RFC2401] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998. [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. [RFC2637] Hamzeh, K., Pall, G., Verthein, W., Taarud, J., Little, W. and G. Zorn, "Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol (PPTP)", RFC 2637, July 1999. [STEVENS] Stevens, W. Richard, "TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume I The Protocols", Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., March 1996, ISBN 0-201-63346-9 RFC2341] and PPTP [PPTP]. Authors of these are A. Valencia, M. Littlewood, T. Kolar, K. Hamzeh, G. Pall, W. Verthein, J. Taarud, W. Little, and G. Zorn. Dory Leifer made valuable refinements to the protocol definition of L2TP and contributed to the editing of this document. Steve Cobb and Evan Caves redesigned the state machine tables. Barney Wolff provided a great deal of design input on the endpoint authentication mechanism. John Bray, Greg Burns, Rich Garrett, Don Grosser, Matt Holdrege, Terry Johnson, Dory Leifer, and Rich Shea provided valuable input and review at the 43rd IETF in Orlando, FL., which led to improvement of the overall readability and clarity of this document.
STEVENS]. Slow start and congestion avoidance make use of several variables. The congestion window (CWND) defines the number of packets a sender may send before waiting for an acknowledgment. The size of CWND expands and contracts as described below. Note however, that CWND is never allowed to exceed the size of the advertised window obtained from the Receive Window AVP (in the text below, it is assumed any increase will be limited by the Receive Window Size). The variable SSTHRESH determines when the sender switches from slow start to congestion avoidance. Slow start is used while CWND is less than SSHTRESH. A sender starts out in the slow start phase. CWND is initialized to one packet, and SSHTRESH is initialized to the advertised window (obtained from the Receive Window AVP). The sender then transmits one packet and waits for its acknowledgement (either explicit or piggybacked). When the acknowledgement is received, the congestion window is incremented from one to two. During slow start, CWND is increased by one packet each time an ACK (explicit ZLB or piggybacked) is received. Increasing CWND by one on each ACK has the effect of doubling CWND with each round trip, resulting in an exponential increase. When the value of CWND reaches SSHTRESH, the slow start phase ends and the congestion avoidance phase begins. During congestion avoidance, CWND expands more slowly. Specifically, it increases by 1/CWND for every new ACK received. That is, CWND is increased by one packet after CWND new ACKs have been received. Window expansion during the congestion avoidance phase is effectively linear, with CWND increasing by one packet each round trip. When congestion occurs (indicated by the triggering of a retransmission) one half of the CWND is saved in SSTHRESH, and CWND is set to one. The sender then reenters the slow start phase.
<- ZLB Nr: 3, Ns: 2 (LNS's retransmit timer fires) <- ICRP Nr: 3, Ns: 1 ICCN -> Nr: 2, Ns: 3 <- ZLB Nr: 4, Ns: 2
Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). 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 RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.