Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-intarea-gre-mtu-00.txt

Hi Ron, Thanks for writing this, and for sending it for review to this list. Please find my review below, which includes sets of comments and suggestions organized as more substantive / more editorial and prefaced with "CMP:". Hope these are clear and useful, and glad to iterate on them. More

Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-intarea-gre-mtu-00.txt

Joe, On May 29, 2013, at 4:31 PM, Joe Touch mailto:to...@isi.edu>> wrote: On 5/29/2013 1:06 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote: Ron, I do have a few questions and suggestion about the practices documented in the draft: - Section 4.1, second paragraph: why DF bit "MUST" set to 1 when the payload header

Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-intarea-gre-mtu-00.txt

Hi, Joe, On Jun 3, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > Hi, Carlos, > > On 6/2/2013 12:22 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote: >> Joe, >> >> On May 29, 2013, at 4:31 PM, Joe Touch > <mailto:to...@isi.edu>> wrote: >> > ... >>> I agr

Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-intarea-gre-mtu-00.txt

Joe, On Jun 25, 2013, at 12:50 PM, "Joe Touch" wrote: > > > On 6/25/2013 7:04 AM, Linda Dunbar wrote: >> Ron, >> >> Your draft recommends that the ingress node discards the frame and >> sends ICMP msg to the source node when the size of GRE encapsulated >> frame exceeds link MTU. >> We experi

Re: [Int-area] draft-bonica-intarea-gre-mtu and ECN

Hi, Lars, On Aug 7, 2013, at 4:20 PM, "Eggert, Lars" wrote: > Hi, > > On Aug 6, 2013, at 19:34, Ronald Bonica wrote: >> Section 5.3 of RFC 3168 specifies procedures for handling the ECN bit when >> reassembling fragmented packets. These rules must be observed by any device >> that reassembl

Re: [Int-area] draft-bonica-intarea-gre-mtu and ECN

s, as this issues are beyond the scope > of the document. > > Have we in fact agreed on this? > > Ron > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Eggert, Lars [mailto:l...@netapp.com] >> Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013

Re: [Int-area] draft-bonica-intarea-gre-mtu and ECN

Hi, Lars, On Aug 8, 2013, at 9:25 AM, "Eggert, Lars" wrote: > Hi, > > On Aug 7, 2013, at 22:18, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) > wrote: >> In other words, noting S5.3 of RFC 3168 in draft-bonica-intarea-gre-mtu does >> not add as compared to not noting it -- t

Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-intarea-gre-mtu-04.txt

Joe, On Feb 18, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > > > On 2/18/2014 9:27 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: >> Hi Joe, >> >> You seem to be talking past me - maybe it was because I wrote too much. >> The fragmentation story for tunnels is very simple as follows: > > Yes, IMO they are, and here's m

Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-intarea-gre-mtu-04.txt

+1. Thanks, -- Carlos. On Feb 18, 2014, at 1:45 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote: > Folks, > > I think that we are conflating two separate efforts. > > Draft-bonica-intarea-gre-mtu describes what is widely deployed today. In > today's, one of the following conditions frequently holds: > > - the ope

[Int-area] GRE IPv6 (Was: (REVISED) Call for adoption of draft-bonica-intarea-gre-mtu-06)

Mikael, On Sep 10, 2014, at 2:29 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonica-intarea-gre-mtu-06 >> >> Please state whether or not you're in favor of the adoption by replying >> to this email. If you are not in favor, p

Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-pignataro-intarea-gre-ipv6-01

I support adopting this draft — it’s a straightforward fix to a specification gap which was identified in this WG. NB: I am a co-author. Thanks, — Carlos. On Nov 20, 2014, at 11:34 PM, Zuniga, Juan Carlos mailto:juancarlos.zun...@interdigital.com>> wrote: Hi all, At the Int-Area WG meeting

Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-pignataro-intarea-gre-ipv6-01

Hi Juan Carlos, This document intends to update RFC 2784, and as such it seems appropriate to retain the Standards Track. If it helps with scope, we could add a sentence to the Intro similar to RFC 2784: Finally this specification describes the intersection of IPv6 GRE currently deployed

Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6

Fred, On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:20 PM, Templin, Fred L mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>> wrote: Hi Ron, -Original Message- From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:13 AM To: Joe Touch; Templin, Fred L; int-area@ietf.org

Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6

there are also others who want to deprecate IPv6 fragmentation altogether. I appreciate what you are going for, but there are a number of factors that would appear to block it. Thanks – Fred fred.l.temp...@boeing.com<mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata

Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6

o tell your MUA to use the text/plain part, if that’s your preference (or be liberal in what you accept). but see below: but see below: Fred fred.l.temp...@beoing.com<mailto:fred.l.temp...@beoing.com> From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:cpign...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, Februar

Re: [Int-area] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6

Fred, > On Mar 31, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Templin, Fred L > wrote: > > Hi Ron, > > RFC2784 punts on IPv6. From Section 9: > >> o IPv6 as Delivery and/or Payload Protocol >> >>This specification describes the intersection of GRE currently >>deployed by multiple vendors. IPv6 as delivery

Re: [Int-area] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6

Hi, Lucy, One approach is to add a 3.c) to the list that Ron shared. I think there is another potential approach to your initial comment: we could note that for a tunneling protocol (GRE), this is equivalent to the relaxation of the UDP checksum in RFC 6935, and keep the existing text. Fred, R

Re: [Int-area] Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu-04: (with COMMENT)

Joel, Thanks! Tom Taylor’s review (of -03) was already addressed in -04. https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu-04.txt Thanks, — Carlos. > On May 9, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > > Joe

Re: [Int-area] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu-04: (with DISCUSS)

Kathleen, > On May 14, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Kathleen Moriarty > wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Suresh Krishnan > mailto:suresh.krish...@ericsson.com>> wrote: > Hi Ron, > > On 05/13/2015 11:39 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote: > > Kathleen, > > > > AFAIK, most IP stacks include code th

Re: [Int-area] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu-04: (with DISCUSS)

Fred, > On May 15, 2015, at 10:39 AM, Templin, Fred L > wrote: > > Hi Brian, > >> -Original Message- >> From: Brian Haberman [mailto:br...@innovationslab.net] >> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 4:58 AM >> To: Ronald Bonica; Kathleen Moriarty; Templin, Fred L >> Cc: Suresh Krishnan; draft-ie

Re: [Int-area] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6-11: (with COMMENT)

Kathleen, > On Aug 4, 2015, at 10:35 PM, Kathleen Moriarty > wrote: > > Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6-11: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To

Re: [Int-area] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6-11: (with COMMENT)

Spencer, Thanks for your review and comments! Please see inline. > On Aug 4, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Spencer Dawkins > wrote: > > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6-11: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and

Re: [Int-area] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6-11: (with COMMENT)

Hi Spencer, Thanks for updating your ballot, I see that only the GRE checksum issue remains in the DISCUSS. In this context, please see inline. > On Aug 5, 2015, at 5:37 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF > wrote: > > So, I've talked to some folks, and thought for a while ... > > On Tue, Aug 4, 201

Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03

Do equivalent arguments apply also to ? Was this one reviewed by Int-area? Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro. Excuze typofraphicak errows > On May 19, 2016, at 21:17, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: > > As a famous physicist once

Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03

Wasim, Juan Carlos, Back to your original request, I do not support adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp. I also did not support draft-xu-softwire-ip-in-udp. I do not believe there’s a case for this new tunnel type. I also believe that a deeper look at the potential problem space can yield be

Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03

Xiaohu, Please see inline. On May 30, 2016, at 6:09 AM, Xuxiaohu mailto:xuxia...@huawei.com>> wrote: Carlos From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2016 10:34 PM To: Wassim Haddad Cc: int-area@ietf.org<mailto

Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-intarea-eping-00.txt

Hi, Ron, Scanning through the document, please find a couple of quick questions and comments: 1. Have you considered an approach as in draft-shen-traceroute-ping-ext, which is more general and has potentially better changes of succ

Re: [Int-area] New draft to update L2TP, GRE, PPTP, GTP & VXLAN, etc. for ECN

Bob, When you say L2TP, do you mean only L2TPv2 [RFC 2661] as in the I-D, or also L2TPv3 [RFC 3931]? (I think should be both). One additional point of clarification — the draft says: This specification therefore updates the following specifications of tightly coupled shim headers by addi

Re: [Int-area] [tsvwg] New draft to update L2TP, GRE, PPTP, GTP & VXLAN, etc. for ECN

[correcting int-area@ietf.org] On Jul 8, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Bob Briscoe mailto:i...@bobbriscoe.net>> wrote: David, On 08/07/16 15:50, Black, David wrote: VXLAN (RFC 7348) is an independent submission (ISE) RFC - it is not updatable by the IETF. Yeah, I realised that af

Re: [Int-area] New draft to update L2TP, GRE, PPTP, GTP & VXLAN, etc. for ECN

Bob, On Jul 8, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Bob Briscoe mailto:i...@bobbriscoe.net>> wrote: Carlos, On 08/07/16 20:32, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote: Bob, When you say L2TP, do you mean only L2TPv2 [RFC 2661] as in the I-D, or also L2TPv3 [RFC 3931]? (I think should be both). Thx. I've a

Re: [Int-area] intarea-tunnels meta-comment: tunnel fragmentation

Fred, > On Jul 15, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Templin, Fred L > wrote: > > Hi Tom, > >> -Original Message- >> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] >> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 12:30 PM >> To: Templin, Fred L >> Cc: Joe Touch ; int-area@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Int-area] intarea-t

Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: Extended Ping (Xping)

Hi, This document aims at addressing a real operational problem, describing a very useful approach. I support its adoption by Int-area. That said, three comments: 1. Given the generally applicable tool it describes, an “Implementation Status” Section [RFC 7942] ought to be included. 2.

Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: Extended Ping (Xping)

Ron > > >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 01:24:23 + >> From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" >> To: Wassim Haddad >> Cc: "int-area@ietf.org" , "intarea-cha...@ietf.org" >> &g

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-probe-00.txt

Hi, Ron, Authors, As I was reading over draft-ietf-intarea-probe-00, and wanted to share a couple of observations for your consideration. * Have you considered the tradeoff of defining new ICMP Types versus extending existing ICMP Types? If using existing ICMPv6 Echo Request/Reply and ext

Re: [Int-area] [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-broadcast-consider-05

Hi, Stephane, Thanks for the follow-up, please see inline. On Jan 16, 2018, at 1:26 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer mailto:bortzme...@nic.fr>> wrote: On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 08:20:49PM -0800, Carlos Pignataro mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote a message of 118 lines which said: The document talks about

Re: [Int-area] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-broadcast-consider-05

Hi, Rolf, On Jan 16, 2018, at 4:53 AM, Rolf Winter mailto:rolf.win...@hs-augsburg.de>> wrote: Carlos, thanks for the review. Comments below: Thanks to you for the quick response, and for the document. Please see inline. Am 14.01.18 um 05:20 schrieb Carlos Pignataro: Reviewer: Carlos Pignatar

Re: [Int-area] [ippm] encapsulation of IOAM data in various protocols - follow up from WG discussion in London

Hi, Greg, Thanks for the quick response — Frank provided answers to your points, but I do have one question about your response (and I will squeeze in a couple of additional comments). Please see inline. On Apr 12, 2018, at 12:54 PM, Greg Mirsky mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Frank

Re: [Int-area] [nvo3] [ippm] encapsulation of IOAM data in various protocols - follow up from WG discussion in London

Hi Greg, Thanks for engaging and for your interest. Please find a couple of follow-ups to your comments, consolidating from the plurality of emails you sent with your responses. The comparison you are suggestion between IOAM and OOAM is a red-herring, and as such I’ll go quiet and not respond

Re: [Int-area] Recycle IPv4 bits

Sure, but this technique is not in RFC 791 which is what I understand the ipv4-id I-D cites and is based on. For the purposes of the ident field, for a fragment (first, middle, or last) the DF value is a don't care. Thanks, Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro. On Apr 22, 2011, at 12:55 PM, "Templi