HI Du Zongpeng, This spec does support different encap types as listed in the tunnel types enumeration. I think some text is missing; should be similar to section 3.5. We can address in the next rev.
Sri From: Duzongpeng <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 12:25 AM To: Sri Gundavelli <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Rajesh Pazhyannur (rpazhyan)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Youjianjie <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Zhoutianran <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Andreas Schultz <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: About GRE tunnel type in draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-06 Hi, Sri I have some commons about the GRE tunnel type in this alt-tunnel draft. In the current draft, several kinds of tunnel types are listed: Tunnel-Type Type Value Reference CAPWAP 0 [RFC5415<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5415>],[RFC5416<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5416>] L2TP 1 [RFC2661<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2661>] L2TPv3 2 [RFC3931<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3931>] IP-IP 3 [RFC2003<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2003>] PMIPv6 4 [RFC5213<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5213>] GRE-IPv4 5 [RFC2784<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2784>] GRE-IPv6 6 [RFC2784<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2784>] And it is said that This specification provides details for this elements for CAPWAP and PMIPv6. What I suggest is that this specification should also refer to GRE-IPv4/v6. I think not too many modifications are needed. Just add a new session: 3.6<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-06#section-3.5>. GRE based Alternate Tunnel GRE can also be used for alternate tunnel encapsulation between the WTP and the AR. o Access Router Information: IP address or Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) for the alternate tunnel endpoint. o GRE Key: optional, defined inrfc2890. The message element structure for GRE encapsulation is shown in Figure 11: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Tunnel-Type=5 or 6 | Info Element Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ . Access Router Information Element . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ . GRE Key Element . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 11: Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation - GRE Fortunately, we do not need to explain what the GRE key element is because there is already this explanation in the current draft "3.6.6. GRE Key Element". I used to join in the work of this draft. I think we have taken this GRE type into consideration, but I do not know why it is missing now. What I means is that GRE type should not be considered in other drafts as L2TP or IP-IP, because GRE is a widely used and important tunnel type in WiFi network. So I suggest to add GRE tunnel type into this draft just as the CAPWAP and PMIP tunnel type. Best wishes Zongpeng Du
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
