ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard

2014-01-21 09:59:58

We are continuing to stray off topic, but...

Router vendors focus on real needs identified by customers.  If this
were to become something customers were bugging them about, then
they'll do it.  OTOH, most hardware in the field today can only track
one 32 bit FCS, given that only one L2 header would need this.  The
ability to run on existing hardware is important.

Perhaps you missed this:

When a critical mass of routers hash on this new protocol number and
port space we'll let you know and the MPLS WG can obsolete MPLS over
UDP and replace it with MPLS over this new protocol.

Providers and router vendors are also aware that most routers look
only for protocol numbers 6 and 17 for load balancing on port
numbers.  So if the motivation of MPLS over UDP is an interim solution
to get ECMP, then not using UDP is not an option.

Curtis


In message 
<290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E63346D1(_at_)EXMB01CMS(_dot_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>
l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk writes:

Yes, it would be unreasonable for the router vendors themselves to design
something with a trailing checksum and pseudo-header check that would meet
their forwarding needs while ensuring reliability.
 
Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: Curtis Villamizar [curtis(_at_)ipv6(_dot_)occnc(_dot_)com]
Sent: 17 January 2014 18:05
To: Wood L  Dr (Electronic Eng)
Cc: stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com; lars(_at_)netapp(_dot_)com; 
joelja(_at_)bogus(_dot_)com; mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating 
MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard
 
In message 
<290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E63346CF(_at_)EXMB01CMS(_dot_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>
l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk writes:
 
There's an opportunity to define a simple generic IPv6 encapsulating
mechanism a la UDP, but with a payload checksum of varying coverage
(header only, partial payload, full payload) and with the (stronger
than UDP) checksum placed at the end of the packet.

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
 
 
Go for it!
 
When a critical mass of routers hash on this new protocol number and
port space we'll let you know and the MPLS WG can obsolete MPLS over
UDP and replace it with MPLS over this new protocol.
 
Thanks for offering to write this.
 
Curtis
 
 
________________________________________
From: ietf [ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant 
[stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: 16 January 2014 17:35
To: Eggert, Lars; Joel Jaeggli
Cc: mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> 
(Encapsulating MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard

On 16/01/2014 17:19, Eggert, Lars wrote:
Hi,

On 2014-1-16, at 18:06, joel jaeggli <joelja(_at_)bogus(_dot_)com> wrote:
These tunnels are stateless
yep. (But they don't have to be.)
Ah, they do if they are to scale. State at speed is really hard. The sort
of systems we are talking about do things like pipeline counters
and it is loooooots of packets later before the counter is actually
incremented.
  The endpoints not the encapsulators have visibility into the
end-to-end loss latency properties of the path.
Yep. But when you tunnel some L2 in UDP, apps that were limited to L2 
domains - where not reacting to congestion may be OK - can now go over 
the wider Internet, where this is not OK.

I'd be great if those apps would change. But in the meantime, it's the 
duty of the encapsulator - who enables this traffic to break out of an L2 
domain and go over the wider net - to make sure the traffic it emits 
conforms to our BCPs.

  the encapsulator is an intermediate hop, similar to any other router
in the path.
It's not. For the rest of the network, that encapsulator is 
indistinguishable from any other app that sends UDP traffic.

UDP is a transport-layer protocol, and we have practices how it is to be 
used on the net. If you want to use it for encapsulation, you bind 
yourself to these BCPs.

Look at it the other way: if transport area folks would want to send MPLS 
packets into the network in some problematic way, I'm sure the routing 
and ops folks would not be amused.
The root cause of the problem here is that UDP, has bifurcated into
a general purpose encapsulation.

Stewart

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>