Hi Brian, Joe, and et al,
Thank you for the questions and comments. Please see inline below.
-Original Message-
From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 10:00 PM
To: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: [Int-area] Some
?
Regards,
Lucy
From: Juan Carlos Zuniga [mailto:j.c.zun...@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 7:44 PM
To: Lucy yong
Cc: int-area@ietf.org; wassim.had...@ericsson.com; suresh.krish...@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: [Int-area] IETF97 Minutes
Lucy,
We always arrange the agenda by Internet Area
Hi Juan and Wassim,
It was my surprise that my talk time was cut out due to whatever reason. I
informed you very early about this new draft coming and asked 10min for the
talk, then the talk was cut to 5min and then not given a chance to talk at all
in the meeting. We worked very hard to make
you mind presenting
AERO applicability for sites interconnection in Seoul int-area meeting?
Thanks,
Lucy
-Original Message-
From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 12:38 PM
To: Lucy yong; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: RE: New Version
Yes, good to work on it under intarea.
Lucy
-Original Message-
From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Krishnan
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 6:33 PM
To: Internet Area; Alia Atlas; nvo3-cha...@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-nvo3-gue...@ietf.org;
> The draft describes the arch and req. for use portion of the Internet
> providing a link to other portion of the Internet.
>
> There are also applications that using portion of the Internet
> provides many links to individual private IP networks, i.e. one link
> to one private IP network.
Hi Joe,
Your tunnel draft addresses IP tunnel in the Internet, i.e. both M network and
N network (in the draft) are on the Internet.
The draft describes the arch and req. for use portion of the Internet providing
a link to other portion of the Internet.
There are also applications that using
Hi Joe,
Please see inline below.
-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 1:47 PM
To: Lucy yong; Templin, Fred L
Cc: to...@isi.edu; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-01.txt
Hi, Lucy,
On 8/24
Hi Fred,
[snip]
I'm assuming everything needs to be configured - there's no way to run
a tunnel without configuring both ingress and egress.
I would consider all the ingresses that lead to one egress as one
tunnel, i.e., a multipoint tunnel. Yes, that needs to be added to the
Lars,
I am confused by your comment. This thread is about GRE encapsulation over IPv6
network. Not about UDP encapsulation.
Lucy
-Original Message-
From: Eggert, Lars [mailto:l...@netapp.com]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 3:14 PM
To: Lucy yong
Cc: Ronald Bonica; int-area@ietf.org
Some comments:
Section 2.1 description is not right. GRE checksum can't detect a mis-delivered
packet and neither the checksum function in the payload. GRE checksum only
provides integrity check on GRE header and GRE payload.
Only IPv4 payload has the equivalent payload integrity check as of
Hi Fred,
Change the GUE header to treat the first nibble as a next header selector. 4
means IPv4, 6 means IPv6 and X means GUE.
[Lucy] As I mentioned in several previous mails, I don't think that this is a
good design for GUE. Even if a compression is required, the solution SHOULD use
a
-Original Message-
From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 2:32 AM
To: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
I confess that I have only skimmed this thread, but as far as I can see
Getting back to our earlier discussion, IP-in-UDP and GUE are currently two
half-solutions. Put them together and you get a whole solution.
Keep them apart, and someone else is going to have to write a whole solution
sometime down the line from now.
[Lucy] GUE can support IP payload. Don't
-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 1:29 PM
To: Lucy yong; Templin, Fred L; Tom Herbert
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
On 4/28/2015 11:24 AM, Lucy yong wrote:
Hi Fred,
GUE uses UDP
Hi Fred,
GUE uses UDP port to indicate GUE encapsulation as UDP payload and
GUE has prototype field to indicate the payload type. Making an
exception and requiring inspection of first nibble at end points is
not a good idea.
Yes, GUE has an officially assigned UDP port number (same
Hi Fred,
GUE uses UDP port to indicate GUE encapsulation as UDP payload and GUE has
prototype field to indicate the payload type. Making an exception and requiring
inspection of first nibble at end points is not a good idea.
I don't like the combination approach.
Regards,
Lucy
Joe,
There's no downside to using the existing IP version field here, and
there are many downsides to using a duplicate field.
[Lucy] GUE is designed to encapsulate a payload, not just IP payload.
GUE protocol field needs to support IP payload type because the tunnel
may require other
Hi Ron,
Security considerations should state that IPsec [RFC4301] can be used to
provide payload security and privacy over an IP network where the security is a
concern.
Thanks,
Lucy
-Original Message-
From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ronald Bonica
Sent:
Hi Carlos,
I am not clear what you propose. UDP checksum includes IP header. GRE does not.
Lucy
From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:cpign...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 2:01 PM
To: Black, David; Lucy yong
Cc: Ronald P. Bonica; int-area@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org;
draft-ietf
I am fine with proposed work around to Section 2.2 but that does not resolve
the text in Section 4.1. If this document is just to document existing
implementation, it needs point out the usage constraints when IPv6 is as
delivery network. I proposed the draft text, Tom had the revised text. Do
Hi Ron,
3c) may happen for a VPN or non-VPN case. The payload can be in non-IPv6 space.
Is “Outcome 3c) is not acceptable, but it extremely unlikely.” for particular
network/usage in your mind?
Is the goal here to prove such corruption is acceptable or extreme unlikely?
Regards,
Lucy
From:
Hi Carlos,
I am not clear what you propose here. UDP checksum includes IP header, GRE
checksum does not.
Regards,
Lucy
From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:cpign...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 2:01 PM
To: Black, David; Lucy yong
Cc: Ronald P. Bonica; int-area
corruption extremely unlikely
or the case where GRE payload is able to tolerate the packet corruption.
Thanks,
Lucy
From: Lucy yong
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 2:23 PM
To: 'Ronald Bonica'; Black, David; int-area@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-gre-i...@tools.ietf.org; intarea-cha
Minor tweak. ☺
From: Lucy yong
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 3:42 PM
To: Lucy yong; Ronald Bonica; Black, David; int-area@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-gre-i...@tools.ietf.org; intarea-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
Hi Ron and Carlos
Hi Ron,
1) and 2 ) are fine. IMO: 3) works under certain conditions but not all.
I add David Black (TSVWG chair) to the thread. He can provide the thorough
check.
Regards,
Lucy
From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 4:49 PM
To: Lucy yong; Zuniga
Thanks authors to add section 4.1.
I am not sure if the statement of “However, even if the delivery header is
corrupted, to likelihood of that corruption resulting in misdelivery of the
payload is extremely low.” is proper. IPv6 requires the end point/upper layer
to deal with the header
Hi Templin,
-Original Message-
From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 12:15 PM
To: Lucy yong; Ronald Bonica; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Int-area] comment on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
Hi Lucy,
Also, you say:
[Lucy] RFC2473
Regards,
Lucy
Thanks - Fred
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
Thanks,
Lucy
Thanks - Fred
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
-Original Message-
From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Templin, Fred L
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 7:52 AM
To: Lucy yong
Hi Templin,
-Original Message-
From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lucy
yong
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 12:09 PM
To: Ronald Bonica; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] comment on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
Hi Ron,
RFC2784 has
? This is not a concern when IPv4
network is the delivery network.
Thanks,
Lucy
-Original Message-
From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 11:57 AM
To: int-area@ietf.org; Lucy yong
Subject: RE: [Int-area] comment on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
Hi Lucy
Hi,
If this draft is to document the protocol of gre in IPv6 exact same as of gre
in IPv4 and update rfc2784, IMHO, it should point out the gre application
behavior differences in IPv4 network and IPv6 network. The exact same protocol
does not mean the same behavior for an application since
32 matches
Mail list logo
