Re: [Int-area] Reviews of "IP Router Alert Considerations" document

Francois Le Faucheur <flefauch@cisco.com> Sun, 07 November 2010 10:19 UTC

Return-Path: <flefauch@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 076D83A6919 for <int-area@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 02:19:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.327
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_GIF_ATTACH=1.42]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z8o9FXaW5WFg for <int-area@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 02:19:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD4263A68CF for <int-area@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 02:19:52 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-Files: image001.jpg, green.gif : 11041, 87
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.58,309,1286150400"; d="gif'147?jpg'147,145?scan'147,145,208,145,147,217"; a="615941437"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2010 10:20:11 +0000
Received: from tky-vpn-client-230-16.cisco.com (tky-vpn-client-230-16.cisco.com [10.70.230.16]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oA7AJuKU024909; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 10:20:09 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-107--613522626"
From: Francois Le Faucheur <flefauch@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CD194BF.5030909@kit.edu>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 05:26:46 +0800
Message-Id: <0B267622-09F7-4590-9D1C-0C336FB50C85@cisco.com>
References: <5CAADD76-8815-4681-B945-DD12C747B907@ericsson.com> <738EF258-9E5F-4867-AAAD-4E0D8A2D5224@cisco.com> <82CFD851-4918-4A8E-A76A-BE53F1B36EC4@ericsson.com> <4CD194BF.5030909@kit.edu>
To: Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: Area Mailing List <int-area@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Reviews of "IP Router Alert Considerations" document
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 10:19:54 -0000

Hi Roland,

Thanks for the review. Responses embedded:

On 4 Nov 2010, at 00:58, Roland Bless wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I've got some more comments on
> draft-ietf-intarea-router-alert-considerations-02.txt before WGLC:
> Section 3:
>> Secondly, some protocols requiring punting may be
>>   carried over a transport protocol (e.g., TCP or UDP) possibly because
>>   they require the services of that transport protocol or perhaps
>>   because the protocol does not justify allocation of a scarce next
>>   level protocol value. 
> 
> You may add that one also gets discouraged using other protocols by
> anticipated deployment problems due to firewalls and NATs filtering
> "unknown" protocols.

Fair point.

> 
>> Therefore,
>>   it is generally not possible to ensure that only the IP Router Alert
>>   packets of interest are punted to the slow path while other IP Router
>>   Alert packets are efficiently forwarded (i.e., in fast path).
> 
> This statement is IMHO misleading, because the following paragraph
> actually points out that considering the value field is such a possibility.

I see. 
We can replace:
"Therefore, it is generally not possible to ensure that only the IP Router Alert
   packets of interest ..."
by
"Therefore, it is generally not possible to ensure that only the IP Router Alert
   packets for next level protocol of interest ..."


> 
>> However, only one
>>   value (zero) was defined in [RFC2113] and no IANA registry for IPv4
>>   Router Alert values was available until recently. 
> 
> You may add a reference to [RFC5350] here:
> was available until recently [RFC5350].

Yes.

Tx

Francois

> 
> Regards,
> Roland



Francois Le Faucheur
Distinguished Engineer
Corporate Development
flefauch@cisco.com
Phone: +33 49 723 2619
Mobile: +33 6 19 98 50 90



Cisco Systems France
Greenside
400 Ave de Roumanille
06410 Sophia Antipolis
France
Cisco.com


 


 Think before you print.

This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.

Cisco Systems France, Société à responsabiité limitée, Rue Camille Desmoulins – Imm Atlantis Zac Forum Seine Ilot 7 92130 Issy les Moulineaux, Au capital de 91.470 €, 349 166 561 RCS Nanterre, Directeur de la publication: Jean-Luc Michel Givone.

For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html