IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP over Intentionally Partitioned Links

Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org> Thu, 26 January 2017 18:19 UTC

Return-Path: <nordmark@acm.org>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C3B212996B for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:19:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.934
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.934 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 ibNBsoO4oUgi for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:19:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAEE9129969 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:19:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.22.227.238] ([162.210.130.3]) (authenticated bits=0) by d.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id v0QIJaIU015781 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:19:36 -0800
To: Richard Li <renwei.li@huawei.com>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, Wassim Haddad <wassim.haddad@ericsson.com>
References: <FB580294-14F5-4ED7-B692-F5F3872247A9@ericsson.com> <F061CEB6876F904F8EA6D6B92877731C3AF2AC0E@SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com>
From: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>
Message-ID: <923f7967-0e76-fa13-9cd3-fc5e153df784@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:19:36 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F061CEB6876F904F8EA6D6B92877731C3AF2AC0E@SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVZi8RFrT4o1U6/XLM6SmMC0Mixn7vjRkxeRH/HJjQ7qFFAfC8M99iKborHciBLx4EtKFaVKXOYhihc7AG80gZ39
X-Sonic-ID: C;jqFN/vPj5hGvjYs6xpAcWQ== M;UGVt/vPj5hGvjYs6xpAcWQ==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/1aVqzxJH_Gso8zPI_IfLqVq68NA>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP over Intentionally Partitioned Links
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:19:52 -0000

On 1/25/17 4:09 PM, Richard Li wrote:
>
> Authors:
>
> Do you intend to specify a standard or provide some information about 
> the implementation?
>

Richard,

I'm not sure I understand your question.

The draft specifies constraints on an implementation (with some MUST and 
SHOULD) for both the L2 partitioning layer and for IP running over this 
partitioned L2. That makes it a standard.
Note that in general it is a bad idea to standardize specific behavior 
since we want to allow implementations to try different things.
FWIW I've been bitten by this in the past with the IPv6 NUD standard 
being far to prescriptive with retransmission behaviors so we had to 
make an additional standards-track RFC relaxing the behavior.

> Another question：Assuming your router supports L2VPN or its 
> equivalent, can L2VPN solve your problem?
>

If L2VPN is used to create a fully connected L2 network, then the L2VPN 
link would not be partitioned. Hence you wouldn't need the IPPL handling 
in that case. (But I imagine L2VPN could be used to create a partitially 
partitioned link as well.)

But that doesn't mean that L2VPN would solve the problem people set up 
to solve when they created split horizon for DSL or PVLAN for Ethernets.

We just need to make sure IPv4 and IPv6 can run reliably on such 
partitioned links.

Does that answer your question?

Thanks,
    Erik

> Thanks,
>
> Richard
>
> *From:*Int-area [mailto:int-area-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Wassim Haddad
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 1:39 PM
> *To:* int-area@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP over Intentionally 
> Partitioned Links
>
> Dear all,
>
> We would like to start a WG adoption call for 
> _draft-nordmark-intarea-ippl-05_ ("IP over Intentionally Partitioned 
> Links”).
>
> Please indicate your preferences on the mailling list. The deadline is 
> Februray 3rd.
>
> Regards,
>
> JC & Wassim
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email