Hi Joe, I'm wondering whether your proposal as below is also applicable to other UDP-based encapsulation approaches which have not yet considered doing fragmentation on the tunnel layer, such as GENEVE, VXLAN-GPE, GRE-in-UDP and NSH-UDP.
Best regards, Xiaohu > -----Original Message----- > From: trill [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe Touch > Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 3:48 AM > To: Donald Eastlake; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [trill] Fwd: Mail regarding draft-ietf-trill-over-ip > > Hi, all, > > Have you considered GUE as an encapsulation layer? > > Encapsulating anything in UDP directly has a number of hazards, including > support for at-rate fragmentation, IPv4 ID generation, etc., that GUE is > intended > to address. > > Joe > > On 5/1/2015 9:58 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > > Forwarded with permission. > > > > Thanks, > > Donald > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: *Donald Eastlake* <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:26 AM > > Subject: Re: Mail regarding draft-ietf-trill-over-ip > > To: Mingui Zhang <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > > Hi Mingui, > > > > Thanks for these comments! See below. > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Mingui Zhang <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I read the document. It's comprehensive and well written. Below, several > comments for your information. > >> > >> 1. It's not clear how the ports IPs are associated with the ports? > >> Maybe, > we can add some words to explain that they can be got from DHCP or manual > configuration? Or we just say it is out the scope of this document. > > > > Yes, they need to be configured. Could be DHCP or manual or maybe some > > sort of orchestration thing... Seems reasonable to mention this in the > > draft. > > > >> 2. Is it helpful to add a reference topology? Terminologies, such as > >> IP > tunnel, port IPs, RBridges can be put onto this figure. A walk-through example > based on this reference topology can be used to explain how the IP tunnel is > set > up, how does a TRILL Data packet get encapsulated/decapsulated and > transported in the IP tunnel. I think this would be educational. > > > > A few more network diagrams would probably be helpful. If you look at > > the minutes from the Dallas TRILL WG meeting, the suggestion of having > > a couple of example packets was supported... > > > >> 3. Both IP and TRILL have specified BFD. Since TRILL is dependent on > >> IP > in TRILL-over-IP, it's unnecessary to have both TRILL and IP interact with > BFD. It's > best to assert TRILL-over-IP will have the IP interact with BFD. Please refer > to > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5882#section-4.4 > > > > Well, if you are only going to use one then I agree with the section > > you reference in RFC 5882 and you should do BFD over IP. But that > > doesn't check the TRILL stack, just the IP and lower stacks. So we > > could recommend just using IP BFD but I don't think we should try to > > prohibit people from also using BFD over TRILL on the link. > > > >> 4. Is the IP link in this document "a single link (physical, or a > >> secure > tunnel such as IPsec)"? Then, we can require the TTL "MUST be set to the > maximum on transmit, and checked to be equal to the maximum value on > reception (and the packet dropped if this is not the case)." See also RFC 5880 > Section 9. > > > > I don't think so. There is nothing wrong with the communication > > between two TRILL IP ports being multiple IP hops. Even if IPsec is in > > use, it could be integrated with the TRILL over IP port at one end but > > at the other end, the IPsec implementation could be integrated with a > > firewall a couple of hops from the RBridge... > > > >> 5. There are six tiny typos marked in the attached doc. > > > > OK. We'll fix this up in the next version. > > > > Maybe you should post these comments, or some of them, to the TRILL WG > > mailing list. It would be good if there was more discussion of drafts > > there. Or if it OK with you, I could just forward your comments and my > > responses to the list... > > > > Thanks, > > Donald > > ============================= > > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 <tel:%2B1-508-333-2270> (cell) > > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> > > > >> Thanks, > >> Mingui > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > trill mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill > > > > _______________________________________________ > trill mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
