-Original Message-
From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 10:39 PM
To: Xuxiaohu; Joe Touch; Tom Herbert
Cc: 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 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 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 5/4/2015 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 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 5/5/2015 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 5/3/2015 8:19 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
Hi Joe,
I'm wondering whether your proposal as below is also applicable to
other UDP-based encapsulation approaches which have not yet considered
doing fragmentation on the tunnel layer, such as GENEVE, VXLAN-GPE,
GRE-in-UDP and NSH-UDP.
Again:
We
Hi Joe,
-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 12:12 AM
To: Xuxiaohu; Donald Eastlake; tr...@ietf.org
Cc: nvo3@ietf.org; s...@ietf.org; int-a...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [trill] Fwd: Mail regarding draft-ietf-trill-over-ip
On
Hi Joe,
I'm wondering whether your proposal as below is also applicable to other
UDP-based encapsulation approaches which have not yet considered doing
fragmentation on the tunnel layer, such as GENEVE, VXLAN-GPE, GRE-in-UDP and
NSH-UDP.
Best regards,
Xiaohu
-Original Message-
17 matches
Mail list logo
