Chris,
The -17 version indeed addresses one of the 4 DISCUSS points, namely the hop
limit vs. TTL. Thank you for this.
I am far from being convinced that the added text about ICMP handling is rock
solid though. While I cannot point a specific issue, I fear that aggregating
and fragmenting
> On Aug 25, 2022, at 01:17, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Aug 25, 2022, at 00:52, Erik Kline wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I.e., either this document needs to formally update RFC 4303 by allowing any
>>> number or another IP protocol number must be requested to the IANA.
>>
>> As I pointed
> On Aug 25, 2022, at 00:52, Erik Kline wrote:
>
>
>
> > I.e., either this document needs to formally update RFC 4303 by allowing any
> > number or another IP protocol number must be requested to the IANA.
>
> As I pointed out in my previous email that is not the case.
>
> The RFC4303
> > I.e., either this document needs to formally update RFC 4303 by allowing
> any
> > number or another IP protocol number must be requested to the IANA.
>
> As I pointed out in my previous email that is not the case.
>
> The RFC4303 ESP has a Next Header field which contains indicates what
>
Warren Kumari writes:
On Wed, Aug 24 2022 at 8:35 PM, Christian Hopps
wrote:
If you own/control/have the rights to the entire network, then
you have the same over all the paths through the network. There
are organizations that wish to deploy IPTFS protected tunnels at
their
On Wed, Aug 24 2022 at 8:35 PM, Christian Hopps wrote:
> Warren Kumari writes:
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 5:33 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
>
> >
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> >
>
> On 2022-8-24, at 2:08, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> >
>
> How about we add the text "This MUST NOT be used when full
> admin control
Hi Warren,
Warren Kumari writes:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 5:33 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
This CBR ESP tunnel is basically identical to a CBR pseudowire.
There was quite a bit of work/discussion between PWE3 and various
transport groups in the past that resulted in a set of guidance
Warren Kumari writes:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 5:33 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
On 2022-8-24, at 2:08, Christian Hopps wrote:
How about we add the text "This MUST NOT be used when full
admin control over the network cannot be assured."?
I don't really understand
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 5:33 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-8-24, at 2:08, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> How about we add the text "This MUST NOT be used when full admin control
> over the network cannot be assured."?
>
>
I don't really understand what "full admin control over the
This version has changes requested in the remaining DISCUSS ballot items from
Lars (Warren's +1), and Eric.
Thanks,
Chris.
internet-dra...@ietf.org writes:
A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-17.txt
has been successfully submitted by Christian Hopps and posted to the
IETF
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Security Maintenance and Extensions WG of
the IETF.
Title : IP-TFS: Aggregation and Fragmentation Mode for ESP
and its Use for IP Traffic Flow Security
Éric Vyncke via Datatracker writes:
--
DISCUSS:
--
## DISCUSS
### Section 2.2.6
Please also mention hop-limit and RFC 8200.
### Absence of ICMP
Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-09: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
Christian Hopps writes:
On Aug 24, 2022, at 04:28, Lars Eggert wrote:
### Section 3.1, paragraph 0
```
3.1. ECN Support
```
There is a lot more nuance to this, as described in RC6040. This document needs
to follow that existing standard rather than define another variant.
We reference
> On Aug 24, 2022, at 04:28, Lars Eggert wrote:
>
>> We deal with that by indicating the RTT is *at least* 4 seconds. Remember
>> that we are implementing a fixed-rate tunnel here. If the RTT is at least 4
>> seconds it's going to basically slow the tunnel to a standstill and so is
>> way
> On Aug 24, 2022, at 04:28, Lars Eggert wrote:
>
>>> ### Section 3.1, paragraph 0
>>> ```
>>> 3.1. ECN Support
>>> ```
>>> There is a lot more nuance to this, as described in RC6040. This document
>>> needs
>>> to follow that existing standard rather than define another variant.
>>
>> We
Hi Lars,
> On Aug 24, 2022, at 04:28, Lars Eggert wrote:
>
>>
>> This text is talking to implementations not users. It's suggesting
>> implementations *also* offer circuit breaker functionality.
>>
>>> What would make sense is to use circuit breakers in the
>>> non-congestion-controlled
> On Aug 24, 2022, at 05:33, Lars Eggert wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-8-24, at 2:08, Christian Hopps wrote:
>> How about we add the text "This MUST NOT be used when full admin control
>> over the network cannot be assured."?
>
> "full admin control" is a necessary prerequisite to
Thank you,
As you may have seen, I have referred to your review when balloting on this I-D.
Regards
-éric
On 19/08/2022, 00:49, "Int-dir on behalf of Tatuya Jinmei via Datatracker"
wrote:
Reviewer: Tatuya Jinmei
Review result: Ready
I've reviewed version 13 of
Hi Lars,
Lars Eggert writes:
On 2022-8-23, at 18:57, Christian Hopps wrote:
### Section 2.4.2, paragraph 0
```
2.4.2. Congestion-Controlled Mode
```
This mode adds a LOT of complexity to this mechanism. Is this really needed?
Could not RFC8229 be used instead of defining an entirely
Hi,
On 2022-8-24, at 2:08, Christian Hopps wrote:
> How about we add the text "This MUST NOT be used when full admin control over
> the network cannot be assured."?
"full admin control" is a necessary prerequisite to mitigate/manage issues, but
not a solution in itself.
This CBR ESP tunnel
Hi,
On 2022-8-23, at 19:56, Christian Hopps wrote:
> Given a few of the comments I think it's useful to point this out at the top.
> This document defines a constant send rate tunnel of OUTER packets, the
> actual data encapsulated is not constant rate and so can and will be
> encapsulated
Hi Christian,
On 2022-8-23, at 18:57, Christian Hopps wrote:
>> ### Section 2.4.1, paragraph 3
>> ```
>> For similar reasons as given in [RFC7510] the non-congestion-
>> controlled mode should only be used where the user has full
>> administrative control over the path the tunnel
23 matches
Mail list logo
