On 11/30/2016 3:17 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 2:32 PM
>> To: Templin, Fred L <[email protected]>; Lucy yong 
>> <[email protected]>; Brian E Carpenter
>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Some thoughts on 
>> draft-yong-intarea-inter-sites-over-tunnels
>>
>> Hi, Fred (et al.),
>>
>>
>> On 11/30/2016 12:51 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
>>> Hi Joe,
>>> ...
>>> I didn't mention route optimization. With AERO, route optimization is what 
>>> happens
>>> when the tunnel ingress switches from an egress that is on a suboptimal 
>>> path to a
>>> different egress that is on a better path.
>> That's internal to the tunnel itself, related to the fact that your
>> tunnel is multipoint and treats all egresses as valid.
>>
>> That's another feature, but again it's hard to see where that would be
>> discussed. It's closest in spirit to egress determination in BGP or
>> LISP, and has no clear relation (AFAICT) to INTAREA (expertise or
>> purview). However...
> It is the same as the way the Redirect function works on physical links, 
> except
> that the Redirect applies to an entire network prefix and not just a singleton
> address. This has already been published in RFC6706, and what we are now
> specifying is essentially RFC6706(bis).

OK, then the bis doc might fall within INTAREA (though I would think it
could be very hazardous to allow a redirect to apply to an entire
prefix! - isn't that an attack vector?)

>
>>> Due to the link nature of the NBMA overlay,
>>> that switching is accomplished through the use of IPv6 ND Redirect messages 
>>> the
>>> same as would occur on a physical link (and in the same spirit as published 
>>> in RFC6706).
>> I don't think I would call that routing either when it happens in a
>> regular network or inside an NMBA tunnel.
> It is the moral equivalent of the Redirect function on physical links.
It's the exact same thing. I agree it's useful, just not that it's routing.

> ....
> The AERO interface is an NBMA interface where the ingress sees all potential
> egresses as potential "neighbors".
Isn't that true for all multipoint links?

> An AERO interface that is configured over
> multiple underlying interfaces would appear to have multiple link-layer
> addresses. Each link-layer address can have a different set of TOS-based
> priorities so that the AERO interface can specify to its neighbors as to
> which link-layer address to use for which class of traffic.
That just means you have a tunnel model that allows one instance to
represent multiple tunnels (or tunnel interfaces). That's fine, but
seems local to the definition of the tunnel.

> >From an IPv6 neighbor discovery standpoint, this is realized by allowing 
> >IPv6 ND
> messages to include multiple S/TLLAOs - one for each underlying interface. 
> Each
> S/TLLAO has a set of TOS-based priorities allowing neighbors to select the 
> best
> underlying interface for the given packet TOS. This is described in Section 
> 3.5
> of the document. I can demonstrate how this works in actual running code
> over a webex if you would like.
I understand the principle, but you're describing a feature of the
tunnel mechanism that seems based largely on applying existing IP
capability inside the tunnel.


>
>>>> I'm not claiming this wouldn't be useful.  I'm saying that we need to
>>>> know what problem it solves to know where to home it.
>>> I have identified two very important use cases relating to aviation.
>> You've defined a customer, IMO - which is great, but short of taking
>> this to an aerospace forum, it doesn't really help me understand where
>> in the IETF it should be discussed.
> It is being proposed to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
> where standards are being established for the future civil aviation data
> communications architecture.

Sure, so it sounds like a standard there and a de-facto one within the
IETF (e.g., individual informational). I haven't seen a case yet as to
why INTAREA should adopt it per se...

Joe

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Reply via email to