Re: [Idr] recap my questions and issues raised during IDR Thurs session for draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-12

John Scudder <> Wed, 12 June 2019 13:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 020391201DC; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 06:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.709
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.709 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JtZyu9QAkIc7; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 06:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9349C12021C; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 06:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id x5CDed7f027620; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 06:50:16 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=fl6n5UlD+sm2NF9tjRW1Ph5hlPwOh8laxgP2z5zuTKA=; b=O9DSHx0x8XrHl1c3Ypl3zGkW9RuvoT1zY0H/kvWNGV7EIPblgXfn+PKFky5Bi5AUZmF+ zmydfiJVJeZ4qTrkZ570PtVBHFoa9SKhoYw76A9FIsGkzDpjg0obJYk6SfVUTldgQ7Nx 5KK15zwrvAjvQ5ldbD67Gd0hD9lXtmVn3sqAJHNRvxB5CSqraGtoOrs54klu8RS1QJk6 LTKbwY2t4GMZCAesS5tcTVwacGRly/5ofmJ0e0rSJvHTR6FQdYtQLH0gGIjBix6q5R4O NhLmdlAQsjCuFvN98iEJR6zht9nFhYRfHHNOy0m7M0VlFxRAgAZYXP33ZB3JBzBd7cja 1Q==
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTP id 2t304h08x6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 12 Jun 2019 06:50:16 -0700
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1987.10; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 13:50:14 +0000
Received: from ([fe80::1549:ffd0:8373:4593]) by ([fe80::1549:ffd0:8373:4593%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1987.008; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 13:50:14 +0000
From: John Scudder <>
To: Robert Raszuk <>
CC: Keyur Patel <>, Linda Dunbar <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] recap my questions and issues raised during IDR Thurs session for draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-12
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 13:50:14 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 741bbd63-c300-4d81-cfab-08d6ef3ce58d
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(4618075)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:DM6PR05MB3963;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR05MB3963:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8273;
x-forefront-prvs: 0066D63CE6
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(376002)(136003)(39860400002)(346002)(396003)(366004)(199004)(189003)(99286004)(5660300002)(6486002)(446003)(53546011)(73956011)(33656002)(76116006)(4326008)(36756003)(6506007)(6246003)(64756008)(6436002)(66066001)(66556008)(66476007)(66446008)(229853002)(2616005)(76176011)(66946007)(316002)(6116002)(6916009)(25786009)(11346002)(476003)(54896002)(102836004)(478600001)(68736007)(8936002)(14444005)(91956017)(256004)(186003)(3846002)(486006)(8676002)(53936002)(236005)(81166006)(2906002)(71200400001)(54906003)(14454004)(71190400001)(86362001)(7736002)(81156014)(6512007)(26005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DM6PR05MB3963;; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: SLtTb74lJAIVPVvWUEp+4tvrRcWlZAclGskApnSFK9Ekij71zTrSUV4titDFhgSIJUxw8ddYJxe61DbttOu22F82zpw1Qjof7TqiybkR60gObSLeJXPqtiE8s1QNuTLFQyjUh5nVX1ycAg/uqQXbbjwNF5hoeX8cCFeDW14rvXAILzqB1fQozQmGxJhD1Hi56PtDnNwiVtVHjHR5S/DItLyOA1/DCZdarvcDbj0K0BqPUbcBv4eUhkgCBLs4zTra0VcLnZb85A1FbS3u1sD+3cSsvAPoMrE4mfr0rT7wBKLjkgZ1qd3zge3BDbu7CjPgCWR+Gmpx9LQffuh/YewwvoRtNy7SZ1wfizE6c5AtrBV//pCZUg1M4w8VLmQ0u9dBFQXih+EDAMLsRgl1RSV46WSzEO0ZOflkQpeRwC4rIsI=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_68538D45E8CD4FDAABA4BEC4A7586410junipernet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 741bbd63-c300-4d81-cfab-08d6ef3ce58d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 12 Jun 2019 13:50:14.7036 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR05MB3963
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-06-12_07:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1906120093
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] recap my questions and issues raised during IDR Thurs session for draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-12
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 13:50:27 -0000

(As an individual contributor)

On Jun 12, 2019, at 6:07 AM, Robert Raszuk <<>> wrote:

If A sends an update to B with field of "remote endpoint" does this field apply to A or B ? Is it remote from sender perspective or receiver perspective of BGP update. That is the dilemma here.

If you read section 1.1 you’ll see (emphasis added):

   In this scenario, when R1 transmits packet P, it should transmit it
   to R2 through one of the tunnels specified in U's Tunnel
   Encapsulation attribute.  The IP address of the remote endpoint of
   each such tunnel is R2.  Packet P is known as the tunnel's "payload".

That seems to leave nothing to the imagination. But wait you might say, that describes RFC 5512, how am I supposed to know tunnel-encaps has not reversed the definition? For that, we can take a look at section 5, "Semantics and Usage of the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute”, which is exactly where I as a reader would go look to find the semantics and usage, before I decided to complain they were not clear. The bulleted list in that section leaves no room for doubt as to whether the field applies to A or B: it applies to B.

So, as a reader, who is looking for clarity and not for things to complain about, I think the document is clear.

(As a co-chair)

Despite what the individual contributor said above, if the authors desire to add a short definition of “Remote Endpoint” to address these complaints, I wouldn’t have a problem with that and don’t think it would require another last call period.