Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-06.txt

Joe Touch <> Wed, 17 May 2017 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C171A126DD9 for <>; Wed, 17 May 2017 14:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H0H7rOwhli1K for <>; Wed, 17 May 2017 14:51:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38103126CC7 for <>; Wed, 17 May 2017 14:51:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v4HLohSs005756 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 17 May 2017 14:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
References: <>
From: Joe Touch <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 14:50:43 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------E7250322632DAFE133D84288"
Content-Language: en-US
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-06.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 21:51:14 -0000

Hi, all,

A new version of intarea-tunnels has been posted, as noted below.

At this point, I would like to ask the chairs to start a WG call to
consider revising the document track, as per below.

_*Some history:*_

This document began as a set of discussions at IETF 72 in Philadelphia
(2008), where a few ADs approached us to try to integrate a number of
emerging tunnel efforts, with the assumption of simply integrating them.
The result was an attempt to simply organize the landscape at the time.

We started that landscape as an INTAREA WG informational doc in March
2010. It took five years of discussions, both on this list and in other
WGs, to realize we needed to start by explaining our understanding of
the concept of a tunnel as a link (issues in 2015). At that point we
realized that many existing and emerging tunnels were inconsistent with
each other and with existing requirements.

We came up with an approach which we believe is both correct and
consistent with existing core Internet requirements, and highlighted
where it differs from current tunnels (standards track, informational,
or otherwise) in Section 5. At this point, we believe the core of this
document is both stable and represents not only a clear view of tunnels
as an architectural component of the Internet, but also represents the
current best practices regarding the design and use of tunnels.

_*Our request:*_

As a result, we'd like to ask the chairs to initiate a call to change
the track of this document from Informational to BCP.

The result of this decision will impact how Section 5 is resolved. If
this document becomes a BCP, that section will be fleshed out for WG
consensus. If this document remains Informational, then the
recommendations in Section 5 might not be appropriate, and will likely
need to be omitted in whole or part.



Summary of 06 changes:

    - updated ECMP discussion

    - updated multipoint discussion

    - updated terminology (atom -> atomic packet)

    - revised Fig 12 and Fig 13 algorithms (it wasn't clear that this
was outer fragmentation)


On 5/17/2017 2:28 PM, wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Internet Area Working Group of the IETF.
>         Title           : IP Tunnels in the Internet Architecture
>         Authors         : Joe Touch
>                           Mark Townsley
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-06.txt
> 	Pages           : 52
> 	Date            : 2017-05-17
> Abstract:
>    This document discusses the role of IP tunnels in the Internet
>    architecture. An IP tunnel transits IP datagrams as payloads in non-
>    link layer protocols. This document explains the relationship of IP
>    tunnels to existing protocol layers and the challenges in supporting
>    IP tunneling, based on the equivalence of tunnels to links. The
>    implications of this document are used to derive recommendations that
>    update MTU and fragment issues in RFC 4459.
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list