On 7/15/08 7:09 AM, Joe Touch allegedly wrote:
John.zhao wrote:
Hi, Joe
Thanks. So it is can be learnt that GRE,Mini Encapsulation seem also
can be discussed here, right?
We intend to include broader discussion of other encapsulations in
future versions; this was intended to be an initial attempt, and
omissions were not intentional.
We've already received suggestions to include GRE. Can you please
provide info on Mini Encapsulation, though?
Note that we've also had a suggestion to include MPLS. MPLS is more like
a conventional L2 layer, which not only encapsulates and decapsulates,
but also adds new hop-by-hop forwarding. I think it's important to
distinguish tunneling from L2 or other conventional protocol layering,
and I believe this is easy as follows:
tunnels:
- encaps/decaps of new headers at the endpoints
- NO new mechanism between the endpoints
other protocol layering
- encaps/decaps of new headers at the endpoints
- new mechanism between the endpoints that may or may
not rewrite thes headers
These sound okay but I would like to see "tunnels" split into two: one
type where there is a setup phase and sharing state between the
endpoints, and another where there is no shared state: an endpoint can
encapsulate a packet, toss it to another endpoint, and the receiving
endpoint will decapsulate it and do the right thing. There are three
qualitatively different levels in the setup mechanism and where shared
state resides.
Scott
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
