On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Lucy yong wrote:
> Hi Templin,
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 12:15 PM
> To: Lucy yong; Ronald Bonica; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Int-area] comment on draft-ietf-intare
: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-gue-03.txt
To: Tom Herbert , Osama Zia
A new version of I-D, draft-herbert-gue-03.txt
has been successfully submitted by Tom Herbert and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-herbert-gue
Revision: 03
Title: Generic UDP Encapsul
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Templin, Fred L
wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert
>> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 12:34 PM
>> To: int-area@ietf.org
>> Subject: [Int
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Templin, Fred L
wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
>> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 5:18 PM
>> To: Templin, Fred L
>> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [I
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Lucy yong wrote:
> Minor tweak. J
>
>
>
> From: Lucy yong
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 3:42 PM
> To: Lucy yong; Ronald Bonica; Black, David; int-area@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-gre-i...@tools.ietf.org; intarea-cha...@ietf.org
> Subject: RE:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> Lucy, David,
>
>
>
> The proposed text says that outcome 3c) is unacceptable but highly unlikely.
> For example, assume the following:
>
>
>
> - That an IPv6 address is assigned to every milligram of matter on
> earth, including ever
Hi Xuxiaohu,
A few comments...
- It seems like the proposal is just to encapsulate IP in UDP
analogous to IPIP, so I'm not sure that the references to softwire are
particularly necessary.
- IP-in-UDP is already implement in Linux using foo-over-udp (as is
GRE-in-UDP, and IPv6-in-UDP), https://lw
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> IPv6 flow label has been proposed as an entropy field for load
>> balancing in IPv6 network environment [RFC6438]. However, as stated
>> in [RFC6936], the end-to-end use of flow labels for load balancing is
>> a long-term soluti
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
>> Updating end hosts to set flow labels per RFC6438 is easy (e.g. this
>> is supported in Linux stack now). Upgrading all of our switches in the
>> network to use flow labels for ECMP and updating all of our NICs to
>> use flow labels for
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Templin, Fred L
wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
>> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 9:22 AM
>> To: Templin, Fred L; Xuxiaohu
>> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for
>>
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Templin, Fred L
wrote:
> In case anyone is wondering why I have suggested combining IP-in-UDP with
> GUE, there may be some uses where only some packets in a flow need to
> include the GUE header whereas the vast majority of packets could go as
> IPv4 or IPv6 raw e
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
> > Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 10:10 AM
> > To: Templin, Fred L
> > Cc: Brian Haberman; int-area@ietf.org
> &
; > Thanks - Fred
> > fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Touch
> >> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 3:04 PM
> >> To: Tom Herbert
> >> Cc: int-area@i
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 4/27/2015 4:26 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> ...
>>> How different would IP-in-UDP + the stuff below be from AERO or GUE?
>>>
>> Without any opt
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 4/27/2015 5:11 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>
>>>
> ...
>
>>>> Without any optional fields or flags, the difference with GUE is an
>
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Templin, Fred L
wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
>> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 5:11 PM
>> To: Joe Touch
>> Cc: Templin, Fred L; int-area@ietf.org
>> Sub
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 4/28/2015 11:24 AM, Lucy yong wrote:
>> Hi Fred,
>>
>> GUE uses UDP port to indicate GUE encapsulation as UDP payload and
>> GUE has prototype field to indicate the payload type. Making an
>> exception and requiring inspection of first ni
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Templin, Fred L
wrote:
> Hi Lucy,
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 7:48 AM
>> To: Templin, Fred L; stbry...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Templin, Fred L
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Lucy,
>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>&
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Templin, Fred L
wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:00 AM
>> To: Templin, Fred L
>> Cc: Lucy yong; stbry...@cisco.com; int-are
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Behcet Sarikaya
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Behcet Sarikaya
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Tom,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Templin, Fred L
wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 10:13 AM
>> To: Templin, Fred L
>> Cc: Lucy yong; stbry...@cisco.com; in
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Templin, Fred L
wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 10:13 AM
>> To: Templin, Fred L
>> Cc: Lucy yong; stbry...@cisco.com; in
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 5/5/2015 9:39 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
>> Hi Joe,
> ..
>>> IP in UDP adds only port numbers and an Internet checksum.
>>>
>>> That doesn't address fragmentation; if outer fragmentation is assumed,
>>> IPv4 needs to be rate-limited to avo
d ID collisions and the Internet
>>>>> checksum is insufficient to correct those collisions.
>>>>
>>>> Right - that is why we have GUE. But, when these functions are not
>>>> needed GUE can perform header compression and the result looks
>>>>
t;
>> >>>> That doesn't address fragmentation; if outer fragmentation is assumed,
>> >>>> IPv4 needs to be rate-limited to avoid ID collisions and the Internet
>> >>>> checksum is insufficient to correct those collisions.
>> >>
, 2015 at 9:54 AM
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-gue-session-id-00.txt
To: Tom Herbert
A new version of I-D, draft-herbert-gue-session-id-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Tom Herbert and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-herbert-gue-session-id
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 7:35 AM, Templin, Fred L
wrote:
> Here's an idea for GRE encapsulation in IPv6. When the Checksum Present
> bit is 1, the Checksum field contains a Checksum of the GRE header plus
> payload as usual, but the Reserved1 field encodes a checksum of the IPv6
> encapsulation head
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Templin, Fred L
wrote:
> I have a comment on this draft. In Section 3.2, it says:
>
> "However, a GRE ingress node can verify tunnel capabilities by sending
>a 1280-byte IPv6 packet addressed to itself through the tunnel under test."
>
> This text is missing t
Hi Joe,
It might be good to reference draft-ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap-00 in this
draft. I think it may be complementary where
draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels describes architecture and tunneling
semantics, and draft-ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap focuses on the mechanics of
underlying encapsulation for tunnels. Right n
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>
>> On Mar 10, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Poscic, Kristian (Nokia - US)
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Does anyone have any info on the percentage of UDP packets with zero-checksum
>> for IPv4 packets in today’s networks (enterprise, internet, any net
Hello,
We are planning to present Identifier Locator Addressing (ILA) in
rtgwg next week (a method similar ILNP to do identifier/locator
split). The relevant drafts are:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-herbert-nvo3-ila/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-herbert-ila-messages/
https://d
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:31 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for your comment. Note that it’s WG adoption call rather than WGLC.
>> If I understand it correctly, as long as it’s worthwhile to provide
>> fine-grained load-balancing of Softwire s
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
> Joe,
>
>
>
> Please see my response inline with [Xiaohu]
>
>
>
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 1:15 AM
> To: Xuxiaohu; Fred Baker (fred); Wassim Haddad
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
> Tom,
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 10:42 AM
>> To: Xuxiaohu
>> Cc: Joe Touch; Fred Baker (fred); Wassim Haddad; int-are
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Templin, Fred L
wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert
>> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 9:14 AM
>> To: Ted Lemon
>> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Templin, Fred L
wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 8:59 AM
>> To: Templin, Fred L
>> Cc: Ted Lemon ; int-area@ietf.org
>> Su
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 5/26/2016 10:08 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
>
> The only way the proposal "unambiguously" knows the difference is when
>> the first 4 bits are 4 or 6, but those are valid configurations of the
>> first 4 bits of other protocols (notably IC
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 5/26/2016 10:52 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> Here's the problem:
>>>
>>> The first 4 bits are either part of the GUE header or IPv4 or I
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Templin, Fred L
wrote:
> Hi Joe and Tom,
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 11:26 AM
>> To: Tom Herbert
>> Cc: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
>>
> The possible side-effect of performing fragmentation on UDP encapsulated
> packets is to worsen the reassembly burden on tunnel egress since fragments
> of UDP encapsulated packets are more likely to be forwarded across different
> paths towards the tunnel egress than those of IP or GRE encaps
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
>> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 11:06 PM
>> To: Xuxiaohu
>> Cc: int-area@ietf.org; Softwires WG; n...@ietf.org; l...@ie
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 6/1/2016 3:50 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
>> Any tunnel that traverses a 1280 link has to fragment, but instead of outer
>> fragmentation
>> it should use tunnel fragmentation which is something I have been
>> advocating for a very
>> lon
s on the Internet should become the norm
fairly soon! (IOS already sends them and I believe we are waiting for
next Linux rebase in Android).
Tom
> Joe
>
> On 6/1/2016 4:57 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>
>>> On
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
>> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 12:34 PM
>> To: Xuxiaohu; otr...@employees.org
>> Cc: Softwires WG; n...@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org; l...@ietf.org;
>> ts...@ietf.org
>> Subj
Date: Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:14 AM
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-03.txt
To: Tom Herbert , Lucy Yong
, Osama Zia
A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-03.txt
has been successfully submitted by Tom Herbert and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Lloyd Wood wrote:
> Fragmentation should be strongly discouraged.
>
> if you've designed a tunnelling solution and you have fragmentation
> happening as a matter of course, you've designed it wrong.
>
As mentioned before we do not always have control of the under
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert
>> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 1:21 AM
>> To: int-area@ietf.org; n...@ietf.org
>> Subject: [Int
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
>> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 2:57 PM
>> To: Xuxiaohu; Tom Herbert
>> Cc: n...@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [nvo3
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 10:37 PM
>> To: Xuxiaohu
>> Cc: int-area@ietf.org; n...@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [nvo3
: Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:54 AM
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-gue-extensions-00.txt
To: Tom Herbert , Lucy Yong
, "Fred L. Templin"
A new version of I-D, draft-herbert-gue-extensions-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Tom Herbert and posted to the
IE
Hi Adrian,
Thanks for the detailed and insightful comments! Some replies in line
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been randomly selected from the Routing Directorate to perform a
> QA review of this document. The philosophy behind QA reviews can be
> found at
>> Yes, security and identifiers are being defined as well known
>> extensions. The reason for having a private data section is to allow
>> implementations or sites to extend the protocol for their own
>> purposes. They may or may not intend standardize. What we don't want
>> to happen is that peop
draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-04.txt
To: Tom Herbert , Lucy Yong
, Osama Zia
A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-04.txt
has been successfully submitted by Tom Herbert and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-ietf-nvo3-gue
Revision: 04
Title: Generic UDP Encapsulation
Doc
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Templin, Fred L
wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
>> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 11:16 AM
>> To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: intarea-tunnels meta-comment: tunnel fragmentation
>>
>> F
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Templin, Fred L
wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
>> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 12:30 PM
>> To: Templin, Fred L
>> Cc: Joe Touch ; int-area@ietf.org
>&g
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Templin, Fred L
wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
>
>
> Ø For IP, these values are represented by the offset value and MF field
> value.
>
>
>
> GUE extensions and GRE extensions also use offset and MF. But, those fields
> appear
>
> in an encapsulation header and not an IP hea
Hello all,
I added a project proposal for next Hackathon in Seoul. It would
consist in implementing an ILA mobility solution
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mueller-ila-mobility-00).
What I am envisioning is that we would emulate at least two carrier
networks and demonstrate ILA mobility of so
he on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Network Virtualization Overlays of the IETF.
>
> Title : Generic UDP Encapsulation
> Authors : Tom Herbert
> Lucy Yong
> Osama
Version Notification for draft-herbert-gue-extensions-01.txt
To: Tom Herbert , Lucy Yong
, "Fred L. Templin"
A new version of I-D, draft-herbert-gue-extensions-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Tom Herbert and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-herbert-gue-
also updating the ILA mobility draft for that effort.
Comments on this draft are greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Tom
-- Forwarded message --
From:
Date: Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 3:23 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-nvo3-ila-03.txt
To: Tom Herbert
A new versi
I would like some agenda to give an update on:
draft-ietf-intarea-gue-00
draft-herbert-gue-extensions-01
draft-herbert-nvo3-ila-03
Thanks,
Tom
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Wassim Haddad
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> The Intarea WG will meet in Seoul on Wednesday (11/16) afternoon for an
> hou
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
>
> On 11/29/2016 11:43 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Joe,
>>
>> On 29/11/2016 17:38, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> Hi, Brian,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/28/2016 7:59 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Hi,
My first question is not whether i
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> Hi, Tom,
>
>
> On 11/29/2016 12:56 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> Hi Brian,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/29/2016 11:43 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
Hi Wassim,
I would like time for:
draft-ietf-nvo3-gue
draft-herbert-gue-extensions
draft-herbert-nvo3-ila
This is most a status update and request for advice on moving forward,
changes to the drafts since Seoul are mostly editorial. 10 minutes
should be good.
I will be updating all three of the
Hi Murray,
Thanks for the detailed reviewed! I've cc'ed int-area WG list also
since GUE in a WG item there now.
A few replies are inline...
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Tom asked me to review this and some related drafts. These are mostly raw
> notes
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:13 AM, Khaled Omar
wrote:
>> As has been stated again and again. Your proposal would have been
>> interesting if it was presented in 1995, or perhaps even in 2000.
>
> FYI, IPv10 will allow IPv4 to communicate to IPv6 and vice versa, how can it
> be interesting if it wa
gt;
I don't know what "anything will process an L3 packet" means. Please
answer directly: does this proposal need changes in every OS or not?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 4:19 PM
> T
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Khaled Omar
wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Khaled Omar [mailto:eng.khaled.o...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 3:09 PM
> To: int-area
> Cc: intarea-ads; intarea-chairs; ietf
> Subject: Google Statistics for IPv6 adoption.
>
> Hi all,
data that supports an IPv10
protocol. I'd suggest you look more closely into current IPv6
deployment issues and see if there's problems there you might want to
tackle.
Tom
> Best Regards,
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
&g
Hello,
At the Chicago WG meeting I made a request that ILA be taken up as a
WG item in int-area. The WG chairs and AD requested that we raise a
discussion on the list about what else is needed to be done for ILA
(Identifier Locator Addressing draft-herbert-nvo3-ila-04). The
question was also raise
lationship between an ILA data plane and
control plane is analogous to the relationship between the IP protocol
and routing protocols. Yes, there is a strong dependency on having a
control plane, but mandating a specific control plane as part of the
core protocol reduces flexibility and extensibility.
T
), but even if that existed it would never be
the only means to control the dataplane. In some deployments simple
configuration is more than sufficient, for example.
Thanks,
Tom
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 5/16/17 11:25 PM, Erik Kline wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 14 May 2017 at
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> On 14/05/2017 05:42, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> At the Chicago WG meeting I made a request that ILA be taken up as a
>> WG item in int-area. The WG chairs and AD requested that we raise a
>>
of the IETF.
>
> Title : Extensions for Generic UDP Encapsulation
> Authors : Tom Herbert
> Lucy Yong
> Fred L. Templin
> Filename: draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01.txt
rg
>> 主题: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-gue-04.txt
>>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Internet Area Working Group of the IETF.
>>
>> Title
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks for your quick response. Please see my reply inline.
>
>> -邮件原件-
>> 发件人: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
>> 发送时间: 2017年5月19日 22:57
>> 收件人: Xuxiaohu
>> 抄送: int-area
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
>
>
>> -邮件原件-
>> 发件人: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
>> 发送时间: 2017年5月20日 12:15
>> 收件人: Xuxiaohu; Tom Herbert
>> 抄送: int-area@ietf.org
>> 主题: Re: 答复: [Int-area] 答复: Is the UDP destination port
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 5/19/2017 11:09 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
>
> GUE is supposed to be both signalling and content (data), where the data are
> IP
> packets.
>
> Since IANA strives to assign one port for a service, IP packet within the
> UDP tunnel should be assig
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Templin, Fred L
wrote:
> Joe, I wanted to run an idea by you. We all know that IPv4 fragmentation has
> problems because of the 16-bit ID field. So, why not insert an IPv6 Fragment
> Header between the IPv4 header and the upper layer protocol data, then
> use IPv6-
GUE header.
> I haven't thought much about other use cases, but it should apply to any IP/X
> encapsulations (X could be TCP, for example).
>
Introducing extension headers in IPv4 might be opening a can of worms.
Could this be done in a new IPv4 option?
Tom
> Thanks - Fred
>
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Templin, Fred L
wrote:
> Joe,
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred
>> L
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 11:49 AM
>> To: Joe Touch ; int-area@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv6 fragment
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 5/23/2017 1:45 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
>> Hi Joe,
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 1:22 PM
>>> To: Templin, Fred L ; int-area@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: IPv6 fra
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
>
>
>> -邮件原件-----
>> 发件人: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
>> 发送时间: 2017年5月21日 0:01
>> 收件人: Xuxiaohu
>> 抄送: Joe Touch; int-area@ietf.org
>> 主题: Re: 答复: 答复: [Int-area] 答复: Is the UDP destination
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
> Hi, Tom,
>
> On 5/25/2017 9:00 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> IPv4 and IPv6 can be directly encapsulated since they have a protocol
>> number (can be encapsulated by version 0).
>>
>> As I mentioned previ
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 5/25/2017 11:27 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> Hi, Tom,
>>>
>>> On 5/25/2017 9:00 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>>> IPv4 and IPv6 c
From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Touch
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:08 PM
> To: Tom Herbert
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: Is the UDP destination port number
> resource running out?// re: I-D Action: draft
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 5/25/2017 1:40 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Templin, Fred L
>> wrote:
>>> If you are talking about the GUE direct encapsulation of IPv4 and IPv6, I
>>> agree
>&g
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
> Tom,
>
>> -邮件原件-----
>> 发件人: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
>> 发送时间: 2017年5月26日 0:00
>> 收件人: Xuxiaohu
>> 抄送: Joe Touch; int-area@ietf.org
>> 主题: Re: 答复: 答复: 答复: [Int-area] 答复: Is the UDP d
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Bob Briscoe wrote:
> Intarea list,
>
> I presented this short draft just under a year ago in intarea. Since then it
> has been adopted as a tsvwg work item.
>
> I have just added specific text to update those tunnel specs that are under
> IETF change control (L2TP
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> Hi, all,
>
> I've noted this before, but to share with other areas:
>
> Although I'm not averse to middleboxes as optional optimizations, I find
> the proposed mechanisms aren't quite optional -- they inject option
> information into the SYN data
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:37 PM, wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> Please see inline.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
>> -Message d'origine-
>> De : Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Tom Herbert
>> Envoyé : mercredi 19 juillet 2017 00:4
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 1:46 AM, wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
> That's the intuitive approach to follow but unfortunately the situation is
> not that obvious to get into.
>
I can give a little background on the Linux situation. There have been
several attempts to get MPTCP into the stack over the past fe
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:26 AM, wrote:
> Re-,
>
> Please see inline.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
>> -Message d'origine-
>> De : Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
>> Envoyé : jeudi 20 juillet 2017 16:37
>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; Olivier Bonaventure; Internet Area; tsv-
>> a...@ietf.org
>>
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Khaled Omar
wrote:
> Hi Suresh,
>
>
>
>> The part that is not clear is why you believe IPv10 will be any more
>> successful or quicker to widespread deployment than IPv6. Can you share your
>> thoughts?
>
>
>
> The deployment of IPv10 is a software development proc
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Khaled Omar
wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Khaled Omar
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 7:32 PM
> To: 'Tom Herbert'
> Subject: RE: [Int-area] Request for a mailing list to IPmix I-D.
>
> Hi Tom.
>
>
> That said, I agree with you that that the technical basis is to allow
> encapsulate versions of IP in a same packet header.
>
This does not justify the statements that this protocol can be
developed and deployed in a short time by technology companies.
Deploying anything at Internet scale is hard
Alexandre,
> But I would like to understand whether the proposal (no name) may work
> without modifying all the intermediary routers. If all intermediary
> routers must be modified to support it, then (proposal) can not work.
>
Then that would end up tunneling the new protocol over IPv6 and IPv4.
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Sullivan
wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 07:29:34AM -0400, Lee Howard wrote:
>> I’m sorry to disagree with you. A bad idea should not be allocated
>> resources; it should be quashed.
>
> My proposal is to quash it by giving it its own rock under which it
>
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Juan Carlos Zuniga
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> The IntArea mailing list has been repeatedly used to debate
> draft-omar-ipv10. So far, comments posted on the mailing list have
> consistently pointed towards a highly controversial topic on multiple
> levels. This incl
1 - 100 of 424 matches
Mail list logo
