Lloyd and Randy,
With respect to draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp, this is why we have IETF last calls, so
thanks for the comments.
We did take the precaution of sending this I-D for an early TSV Directorate
review because of the concern about a number of factors and the overlap with
tsvwg work, but the review came back "clean". Of course, such a review is just
one person, so this conversation is good.
Wrt zero checksum, where do you stand on nested checksums? There is some claim
that they represent a waste of processing. I am not convinced by that when each
layer is using dedicated hardware (that can presumably process checksums at line
speed), but I am interested in the consequences for cheap hardware and for
software implementations (as have been claimed to be some of the motivations for
this work).
Other TSV-related issues that surely pop up are:
- allocation of ports for foo-in-UDP
- congestion control
Please note that there are a number of I-Ds that you missed in your broad sweep
of "I am opposed". You should probably look at the NVGRE and VXLAN work (which I
think is lurking around the NVO3 working group) because that is also looking at
UDP encaps of a tunnelling protocol.
Thanks,
Adrian
Health warnings:
I am responsible AD for draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp
I am a co-author of the gre-in-udp draft.
-----Original Message-----
From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk
Sent: 09 January 2014 08:07
To: randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com
Cc: gorry(_at_)erg(_dot_)abdn(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk; mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; david(_dot_)black(_at_)emc(_dot_)com;
tsvwg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; jnc(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu; lisp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [mpls] draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp was RE: gre-in-udp draft (was: RE:
[tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG)
Randy,
okay, let tsvwg adopt draft-yong-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap, and let's get
consensus on it. And then the authors can adopt that consensus for
mpls-in-udp,
which overlaps in authorship...
thanks,
Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: Randy Bush [randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com]
Sent: 09 January 2014 07:51
To: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng)
Cc: david(_dot_)black(_at_)emc(_dot_)com;
gorry(_at_)erg(_dot_)abdn(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
jnc(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu; lisp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; tsvwg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp was RE: gre-in-udp draft (was: RE: [tsvwg]
Milestones changed for tsvwg WG)
Because they specify zero UDP checksums,
I oppose publication of draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp in its current form
I oppose tsvwg adoption of draft-yong-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap in its current
form.
I oppose the IETF lisp documents.
lloyd,
i think i understand your position. but i disagree with preventing wg
adoption of draft-yong-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap, mainly because i strongly
see wg adoption as how we get to discuss and work on a document, not as
approval of the document. as david said, i think we need to discuss it
so we can decide if it should be fixed. to do so, we have to adopt it.
randy
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls