Hi, Sri
Thank you for your reply. I can repeat the reason.
In the current draft, section 3.2
o Info Element: This field contains tunnel specific configuration
parameters to enable the WTP to setup the alternate tunnel. This
specification provides details for this elements for **CAPWAP and
PMIPv6**. This specification reserves the tunnel type values for
the key tunnel types and defines the most common message elements.
We anticipate that message elements for the other protocols (like
L2TPv3, etc) will be defined in other specifications in the
future.
And my suggestion is that GRE should also be provided.
Reason 1: GRE is a widely used and important tunnel type in WiFi network.
Reason 2: 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. I mean
that GRE type should not be considered in other drafts as L2TP or IP-IP, and
should be considered just as **CAPWAP and PMIPv6**
Reason 3: I know that we have that section "3.6.6. GRE Key Element". I think
that is just because we have taken this GRE type into consideration. But in
current draft, on one hand, it is declared that only **CAPWAP and PMIPv6**'s
details are provided; on the other hand, this section 3.6.6 provides details of
GRE. They conflicts. My suggestion is to add a new section 3.6, and change the
declaration to "This specification provides details for this elements for
**CAPWAP, PMIPv6, and GRE**"
Hope no misunderstanding here. If any problem, please connect me.
Thanks.
Best Regards
Zongpeng Du
-----Original Message-----
From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 12:15 PM
To: Duzongpeng; Warren Kumari; [email protected]; John Kaippallimalil; Liu
Dapeng; Mark Grayson (mgrayson)
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Start of 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel
Hello Zongpeng,
We do have support for the following encapsulation types and we also have a
section for the GRE keys. The Access Router information element is already
there. So, I don¹t see why we need one more section.
Can you clarify what is not clear from the below text ?
‹-
o Tunnel-Type: The tunnel type is specified by a 2 byte value. This
specification defines the values from zero (0) to five (5) as
given below. The remaining values are reserved for future use.
* 0: CAPWAP. This refers to a CAPWAP data channel described in
[RFC5415][RFC5416].
Zhang, et al. Expires December 10, 2016 [Page
12]Internet-Draft Alternate-- Tunnel June 2016
* 1: L2TP. This refers to tunnel encapsulation described in
[RFC2661].
* 2: L2TPv3. This refers to tunnel encapsulation described in
[RFC3931].
* 3: IP-in-IP. This refers to tunnel encapsulation described in
[RFC2003].
* 4: PMIPv6-UDP. This refers to the UDP tunneling encapsulation
described in [RFC5844].
* 5: GRE. This refers to GRE tunnel encapsulation as described
in [RFC2784].
* 6: GTPv1-U. This refers to GTPv1 user plane mode as described
in [TS29281].
‹-
‹-
3.6.6. GRE Key Element
If a WTP receives the GRE Key Element in the Alternate Tunnel
Encapsulation message element for GRE selection, the WTP must insert
the GRE Key to the encapsulation packet (see [RFC2890]). An AR
acting as decapsulating tunnel endpoint identifies packets belonging
to a traffic flow based on the Key value.
The GRE Key Element field contains a four octet number defined in
[RFC2890].
Zhang, et al. Expires December 10, 2016 [Page
19]Internet-Draft Alternate-- Tunnel June 2016
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| GRE Key Element Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| GRE Key |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 15: GRE Key Element
GRE Key: The Key field contains a four octet number which is inserted
by the WTP according to [RFC2890].
3.6.1. Access Router Information Elements
Š
On 6/16/16, 5:33 AM, "OPSAWG on behalf of Duzongpeng"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Generally, I support the adoption of the draft.
>
>I have posted a suggestion about adding the GRE tunnel type for the
>draft. Will the author consider it? Thanks.
>
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg04165.html
>
>Best Regards
>Zongpeng Du
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Warren
>Kumari
>Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 2:04 AM
>To: [email protected]; John Kaippallimalil; Liu Dapeng;
>[email protected]
>Subject: [OPSAWG] Start of 2nd WGLC for
>draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel
>
>Dear OpsAWG WG,
>
>This begins a WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel - this WGLC
>ends on June 29th.
>
>This is the second WGLC for this document - it initially successfully
>passed WGLC in August 2014
>(https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg03522.html)
>and was handed to the IESG for publication in early September 2014.
>
>After it was sent to the IESG (in Feb 2015) a very similar draft
>appeared
>- draft-you-opsawg-capwap-separation-for-mp. We realized that two, very
>similar documents, with significant overlap would be confusing, and so
>we requested that draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel be returned to
>the WG and asked the authors to merge them into one document. There was
>some delays, but this has finally been completed.
>
>The WG is requested to review the document and provide (clear) feedback
>on if you believe it is ready for publication. If not, please provide
>suggestions for improvement / text.
>
>Please note: Even if you said it was great on the first WGLC, it is
>very useful to repeat this comment now!
>
>W
>
>
>--
>I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
>idea in the first place.
>This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
>regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
>pants.
> ---maf
>
>_______________________________________________
>OPSAWG mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>
>_______________________________________________
>OPSAWG mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
