Re: [Idr] Working group last call for draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-04

<bruno.decraene@orange.com> Tue, 27 June 2017 16:21 UTC

Return-Path: <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FCDA129B95; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 09:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O0irzbzsZpLa; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 09:21:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta239.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F1DE129601; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 09:21:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar05.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.7]) by opfedar23.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 888BC1605E1; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:21:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.41]) by opfedar05.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 6A23E60060; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:21:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e92a:c932:907e:8f06]) by OPEXCLILM31.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::2cc9:4bac:7b7d:229d%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0352.000; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:21:12 +0200
From: <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
To: Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>, "draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps@ietf.org>
CC: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Working group last call for draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-04
Thread-Index: AQHS71Vzeoktb5GvZUSUV7Um2yt5OKI43/9A
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 16:21:12 +0000
Message-ID: <20500_1498580473_595285F9_20500_357_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A477B08B6@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <2AEDAB02-02F4-46C2-92CA-8880BBAFAAAB@juniper.net> <25760_1498215376_594CF3D0_25760_174_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A477A7C7E@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <6a18ac48-02bf-4708-bdc2-6fca76aa673d@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <6a18ac48-02bf-4708-bdc2-6fca76aa673d@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.3]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/aBAKpWkqi97jPQcWlVDIJUKRmHY>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Working group last call for draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-04
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 16:21:17 -0000

> From: Eric C Rosen [mailto:erosen@juniper.net]   > Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 4:56 PM
> 
 > On 6/23/2017 6:56 AM, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote:
 > > I wouldn't said that I have reviewed the document (-06), nor the discussion, but section
 > 3.3.1 " IPv4 DS Field" seems IPv4 specific and we probably need to also cover IPv6. Possibly,
 > the same sub-TLV may be used.
 > > In addition, there is the IPv6 flow label, but I don't know whether it would be useful to
 > specify it or not.
 > 
 > It's impossible for a single document to specify a sub-TLV for every
 > encapsulation header field that might possibly be useful.  I tried to
 > include in the document enough of a selection of sub-TLVs to indicate
 > how more might be added.  If someone wants to signal a value for the
 > IPv6 flow label field, it should be fairly straightforward to write a
 > draft specifying a suitable sub-TLV.

Fair point for the IPv6 flow label.

I don't think the argument work for making the "IPv4 DS Field" IPv4 specific with no provision for IPv6. I see 3 options to cover IPv6:
- one sub-TLV IP version agnostic
- two  2 sub-TLVs IPv4 QoS, IPv6 QoS
- if only one IP version specific sub-TLV can be defined, we may want it to be IPv6 rather than IPv4.

If it's impossible, I guess we can also remove the QoS field. 

--Bruno
 


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.