Hi, Sri As I have said before, I generally agree with the current draft.
What I suggested is just for making the draft less conflict according to my understanding. If you think it has been very clear that GRE tunnel has been introduced, it is ok for me that you can add a sentence in GRE Key section. Tianran has suggested that adding a new section can make it clear that the position of "GRE Key Element" is after the "Access Router Information Element" if the tunnel type = 5. I fully agree with that statement. Best Regards Zongpeng Du -----Original Message----- From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 6:41 AM To: Zhoutianran; 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 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
