inline .. On 6/21/16, 2:59 AM, "Zhoutianran" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I think what Zongpeng mean is: > >1. Add "GRE" in section 3.2, in the line " This specification provides >details for this elements for CAPWAP and PMIPv6." >-->" This specification provides details for this elements for CAPWAP, >PMIPv6 and GRE." >Because GRE has already been discussed in this document, and there is no >need to provide a specific document for GRE. There is no need for additional document for GRE. All the required information elements including GRE keys are included. Document has support for GRE tunneling; If there is no support for GRE tunneling, we would not have discussed about GRE Keys. I don’t think we can have one more section for GRE. I don’t think we need additional section, but I can add a sentence in GRE Key section. > >2. This document have section 3.6.6. to describe the "GRE Key Element", >but no text to specify where to insert this block. So, he suggest a new >section 3.6 to specify that the "GRE Key Element" information should just >follow the "Access Router Information Element". > > >Best, >Tianran > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Duzongpeng >> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 3:36 PM >> To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); 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 >> >> 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 _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
