-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 3:42 AM
To: Tom Herbert; Templin, Fred L
Cc: Xuxiaohu; Donald Eastlake; tr...@ietf.org; nvo3@ietf.org;
int-a...@ietf.org;
s...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [trill] Fwd: Mail regarding
-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 12:33 AM
To: Xuxiaohu; Donald Eastlake; tr...@ietf.org
Cc: nvo3@ietf.org; int-a...@ietf.org; s...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [trill] Fwd: Mail regarding draft-ietf-trill-over-ip
On 5/4/2015
On 5/5/2015 3:43 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Then what you're saying is that the tunnel ingress - as an app - has
flows that are distinguishable by the net. That can happen with any
application.
But, that's just it - when the original source does the probing the data
packets are always
On 5/5/2015 9:39 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
..
IP in UDP adds only port numbers and an Internet checksum.
That doesn't address fragmentation; if outer fragmentation is assumed,
IPv4 needs to be rate-limited to avoid ID collisions and the Internet
checksum is insufficient to correct
On 5/5/2015 2:23 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
The better solution would be RFC 4821-style probing by the tunnel
ingress to the tunnel egress.
As you know, I agree with this (per Section 3.13 of AERO) but it is not
exactly like RFC4821. With RFC4821, since the source of the probes
On 5/5/2015 3:15 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 2:59 PM
To: Templin, Fred L; Dave Dolson; Xuxiaohu; Donald Eastlake; tr...@ietf.org
Cc: nvo3@ietf.org; int-a...@ietf.org; s...@ietf.org
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 5/4/2015 7:05 PM, Larry Kreeger (kreeger) wrote:
Hi Joe,
Please see my response in this thread
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/msg04612.html .
Also, could you explain the problems that would be caused by
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Paul Quinn (paulq) pa...@cisco.com wrote:
Hello,
On May 4, 2015, at 5:01 PM, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi VXLAN-gpe authors,
After reading many times and discussions with one of the 12 coauthors :)
I think I now understand better this
On 5/4/2015 7:23 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
In a word, IP-in-UDP is just intended for those network environments
where fragmentation on the tunnel layer and strong checksums are not
desired.
That's insufficient. They are only applicable where fragmentation and a
strong checksum are not *needed*.
On 5/5/2015 7:54 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
I thought we determined the IP-in-UDP is just GUE with header compression?
IP in UDP adds only port numbers and an Internet checksum.
That doesn't address fragmentation; if outer fragmentation is assumed,
IPv4 needs to be rate-limited to avoid ID
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 5/5/2015 9:39 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
..
IP in UDP adds only port numbers and an Internet checksum.
That doesn't address fragmentation; if outer fragmentation is assumed,
IPv4 needs to be rate-limited to avoid
On May 5, 2015, at 12:52 PM, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 5/4/2015 7:05 PM, Larry Kreeger (kreeger) wrote:
Hi Joe,
Please see my response in this thread
On 5/5/2015 11:47 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 11:26 AM
To: Templin, Fred L; Xuxiaohu; Donald Eastlake; tr...@ietf.org
Cc: nvo3@ietf.org; int-a...@ietf.org; s...@ietf.org
Subject: Re:
On 5/5/2015 11:45 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
The solution provided - to check for 0x01 - is incorrect. IP can have
versions that include 0x10 and 0x11.
It is correct as we defined it-- this is a solution to support direct
encapsulation of only IPv4 and IPv6. This optimizes encapsulation
On 5/5/2015 11:53 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Templin, Fred L
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com wrote:
Hi Joe,
-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 11:26 AM
To: Templin, Fred L; Xuxiaohu; Donald Eastlake;
On 5/5/2015 12:34 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Or just define a simple version translation as part of encapsulation.
So for IPv8:
0x1000-0x0101 on encapsulation
0x0101-0x1000 on decapsualtion
And what happens to 0x0101 WHEN it shows up?
You need more patterns than you have because IP is
On 5/4/2015 7:05 PM, Larry Kreeger (kreeger) wrote:
Hi Joe,
Please see my response in this thread
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/msg04612.html .
Also, could you explain the problems that would be caused by indicating
IPv4/IPv6 directly rather than requiring
On 5/5/2015 11:04 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 10:54 AM
To: Templin, Fred L; Xuxiaohu; Donald Eastlake; tr...@ietf.org
Cc: nvo3@ietf.org; int-a...@ietf.org; s...@ietf.org
Subject: Re:
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Templin, Fred L
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com wrote:
Hi Joe,
-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 11:26 AM
To: Templin, Fred L; Xuxiaohu; Donald Eastlake; tr...@ietf.org
Cc: nvo3@ietf.org;
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 5/5/2015 11:04 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 10:54 AM
To: Templin, Fred L; Xuxiaohu; Donald Eastlake; tr...@ietf.org
Cc:
On 5/5/2015 1:34 PM, Dave Dolson wrote:
For IPv6, if the packet doesn't fit in the tunnel, the ICMP6 too big
message is sent, and the sender fragments it, sends it again, and notes
the PMTU for future packets. This is how IPv6 fragmentation is supported.
If the ICMP is received (and not
21 matches
Mail list logo
