Re: [Int-area] [tsvwg] Is it feasible to perform fragmentation on UDP encapsulated packets.
Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Wed, 15 June 2016 20:13 UTC
Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 5808912DB4D; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.325
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.325 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] 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 242GUliZqxNX; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) (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 5ACA612DB3F; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.184.95] ([128.9.184.95]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u5FKCVX2010402 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:12:32 -0700 (PDT)
To: Lloyd Wood <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk>, Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>, "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>
References: <E83B905A-FF6D-4996-B71A-7921DE4B133B@ericsson.com> <BFC09F5C-D6DF-4B6B-AA95-03919B9F09FB@cisco.com> <573E2A0E.1060609@isi.edu> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D54EB60@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <573F453C.5060908@isi.edu> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D554B73@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com> <5743303C.5040109@isi.edu> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D55514C@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com> <5743DD16.3050506@isi.edu> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D555482@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com> <57448C14.2060203@isi.edu> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D5557DE@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com> <9c462520-eb8e-fcd0-0a08-228f80fbc779@isi.edu> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D5596E0@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com> <974977917.2492241.1465708308527.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <5761B6AF.8030107@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:12:31 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <974977917.2492241.1465708308527.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030502040200010703010909"
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/f7dhLaynuTbnZWdJhLw9TWAIngE>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:25:06 -0700
Subject: Re: [Int-area] [tsvwg] Is it feasible to perform fragmentation on UDP encapsulated packets.
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: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 20:13:47 -0000
On 6/11/2016 10:11 PM, Lloyd Wood wrote: > Fragmentation should be strongly discouraged. Avoided where possible for sure. > > if you've designed a tunnelling solution and you have fragmentation > happening as a matter of course, you've designed it wrong. If you have a solution that recurses (X over X, with some intervening layers or not), and X has a required minimum message size, then you either have a solution that - in at least some non-trivial situations - will fragment as a matter of course or a fantasy that cannot exist. The only reason we avoid this in typical operation is by avoiding X over X. Once you have a tunnel, that might not be avoidable (or even detectable, depending on encryption). Joe > > Lloyd Wood > lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk > > On Friday, May 27, 2016, 8:10 PM, Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> wrote: > > <Note that I have changed the subject of the email hence it has > nothing to do with the WG adoption call now. It's just a > discussion on a particular issue which is related to those WGs > which are working on UDP tunnels. The reason for containing the > old email is to use it as a background which may be useful for > better understanding of this particular issue> > > The possible side-effect of performing fragmentation on UDP > encapsulated packets is to worsen the reassembly burden on tunnel > egress since fragments of UDP encapsulated packets are more likely > to be forwarded across different paths towards the tunnel egress > than those of IP or GRE encapsulated packets. > > It seems that most X-over-UDP proposals choose to prohibit the > tunnel ingress from performing fragmentation on UDP encapsulated > packets. See the following quoted text regarding fragmentation > from those X-over-UDP drafts: > > LISP: > > When an ITR receives a packet from a site-facing interface and adds H > octets worth of encapsulation to yield a packet size greater than L > octets, it resolves the MTU issue by first splitting the original > packet into 2 equal-sized fragments. A LISP header is then > prepended > to each fragment. > > VXLAN: > > VTEPs MUST NOT fragment VXLAN packets. Intermediate routers may > fragment encapsulated VXLAN packets due to the larger frame size. > The destination VTEP MAY silently discard such VXLAN fragments. > > VXLAN-GPE: > > VTEPs MUST never fragment an encapsulated VXLAN GPE packet, and when > the outer IP header is IPv4, VTEPs MUST set the DF bit in the outer > IPv4 header. > > GEVENE: > > To prevent fragmentation and maximize performance, the best practice > when using Geneve is to ensure that the MTU of the physical network > is greater than or equal to the MTU of the encapsulated network plus > tunnel headers. > > GUE: > > If a packet is fragmented before encapsulation in GUE, all the > related fragments must be encapsulated using the same source port > (inner flow identifier). An operator may set MTU to account for > encapsulation overhead and reduce the likelihood of fragmentation. > > GRE/UDP > > Regarding packet fragmentation, an encapsulator/decapsulator SHOULD > be compliant with [RFC7588] and perform fragmentation before the > encapsulation. > > However, the above choice seems conflict with the requirements as > described in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-02 > > > I wonder whether the IETF should reach a consensus on whether or > not the fragmentation on UDP encapsulated packets should be allowed. > > Best regards, > Xiaohu > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Xuxiaohu > > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 4:35 PM > > To: 'Joe Touch'; Fred Baker (fred); Wassim Haddad > > Cc: int-area@ietf.org <javascript:return> > > Subject: RE: [Int-area] Call for adoption of > draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03 > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch@isi.edu <javascript:return>] > > > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 2:11 AM > > > To: Xuxiaohu; Fred Baker (fred); Wassim Haddad > > > Cc: int-area@ietf.org <javascript:return> > > > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of > > > draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03 > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/24/2016 7:24 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote: > > > > Hi Joe, > > > > > > > > I wonder whether you want to tell me the following truth by the > > > > example that you gave: no matter whatever improvements we > had done > > > > with this draft, those persons who dislike it by the light > of nature > > > > would dislike it in the end. > > > > > > The only improvements that would make this doc useful would be > to add > > > capabilities already in GRE/UDP or GUE/UDP, which we already have. > > > > Let's go over the four things you mentioned earlier in GRE/UDP > and GUE/UDP: > > > > - stronger checksums > > > > In GRE/UDP, in order to use UDP-zero-checksum, it gave the following > > restrictions: > > " 6. UDP Checksum Handling > > > > 6.1. UDP Checksum with IPv4 > > > > For UDP in IPv4, the UDP checksum MUST be processed as > specified in > > [RFC768] and [RFC1122] for both transmit and receive. The IPv4 > > > > > > > > Yong, Crabber, Xu, Herbert > [Page 12] > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Internet-Draft GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation > March 2016 > > > > header includes a checksum which protects against mis-delivery of > > the packet due to corruption of IP addresses. The UDP checksum > > potentially provides protection against corruption of the UDP > header, > > GRE header, and GRE payload. Disabling the use of checksums is a > > deployment consideration that should take into account the > risk and > > effects of packet corruption. > > > > When a decapsulator receives a packet, the UDP checksum field > MUST > > be processed. If the UDP checksum is non-zero, the > decapsulator MUST > > verify the checksum before accepting the packet. By default a > > decapsulator SHOULD accept UDP packets with a zero checksum. > A node > > MAY be configured to disallow zero checksums per [RFC1122]; > this may > > be done selectively, for instance disallowing zero checksums from > > certain hosts that are known to be sending over paths subject to > > packet corruption. If verification of a non-zero checksum > fails, a > > decapsulator lacks the capability to verify a non-zero > checksum, or > > a packet with a zero-checksum was received and the > decapsulator is > > configured to disallow, the packet MUST be dropped and an > event MAY > > be logged. > > > > 6.2. UDP Checksum with IPv6 > > > > For UDP in IPv6, the UDP checksum MUST be processed as > specified in > > [RFC768] and [RFC2460] for both transmit and receive. > > > > When UDP is used over IPv6, the UDP checksum is relied upon to > > protect both the IPv6 and UDP headers from corruption. As such, A > > default GRE-in-UDP Tunnel MUST perform UDP checksum; A TMCE > GRE-in- > > UDP Tunnel MAY be configured with the UDP zero-checksum mode > if the > > traffic-managed controlled environment or a set of closely > > cooperating traffic-managed controlled environments (such as by > > network operators who have agreed to work together in order to > > jointly provide specific services) meet at least one of following > > conditions: > > > > a. It is known (perhaps through knowledge of equipment types and > > lower layer checks) that packet corruption is exceptionally > > unlikely and where the operator is willing to take the risk of > > undetected packet corruption. > > > > b. It is judged through observational measurements (perhaps of > > historic or current traffic flows that use a non-zero checksum) > > that the level of packet corruption is tolerably low and where > > the operator is willing to take the risk of undetected packet > > corruption. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yong, Crabber, Xu, Herbert > [Page 13] > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Internet-Draft GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation > March 2016 > > > > c. Carrying applications that are tolerant of mis-delivered or > > corrupted packets (perhaps through higher layer checksum, > > validation, and retransmission or transmission redundancy) > where > > the operator is willing to rely on the applications using the > > tunnel to survive any corrupt packets. > > > > The following requirements apply to a TMCE GRE-in-UDP tunnel that > > use UDP zero-checksum mode: > > > > a. Use of the UDP checksum with IPv6 MUST be the default > > configuration of all GRE-in-UDP tunnels. > > > > b. The GRE-in-UDP tunnel implementation MUST comply with all > > requirements specified in Section 4 of [RFC6936] and with > > requirement 1 specified in Section 5 of [RFC6936]. > > > > c. The tunnel decapsulator SHOULD only allow the use of UDP > zero- > > checksum mode for IPv6 on a single received UDP Destination > > Port regardless of the encapsulator. The motivation for this > > requirement is possible corruption of the UDP Destination > Port, > > which may cause packet delivery to the wrong UDP port. If > that > > other UDP port requires the UDP checksum, the mis-delivered > > packet will be discarded. > > > > d. It is RECOMMENDED that the UDP zero-checksum mode for > IPv6 is > > only enabled for certain selected source addresses. The > tunnel > > decapsulator MUST check that the source and destination IPv6 > > addresses are valid for the GRE-in-UDP tunnel on which the > > packet was received if that tunnel uses UDP zero-checksum > mode > > and discard any packet for which this check fails. > > > > e. The tunnel encapsulator SHOULD use different IPv6 > addresses for > > each GRE-in-UDP tunnel that uses UDP zero-checksum mode > > regardless of the decapsulator in order to strengthen the > > decapsulator's check of the IPv6 source address (i.e., > the same > > IPv6 source address SHOULD NOT be used with more than one > IPv6 > > destination address, independent of whether that destination > > address is a unicast or multicast address). When this is not > > possible, it is RECOMMENDED to use each source IPv6 > address for > > as few UDP zero-checksum mode GRE-in-UDP tunnels as is > feasible. > > > > f. When any middlebox exists on the path of a GRE-in-UDP > tunnel, > > it is RECOMMENDED to use the default mode, i.e. use UDP > > checksum, to reduce the chance that the encapsulated > packets to > > be dropped. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yong, Crabber, Xu, Herbert > [Page 14] > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Internet-Draft GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation > March 2016 > > > > g. Any middlebox that allows the UDP zero-checksum mode for > IPv6 > > MUST comply with requirement 1 and 8-10 in Section 5 of > > [RFC6936]. > > > > h. Measures SHOULD be taken to prevent IPv6 traffic with > zero UDP > > checksums from "escaping" to the general Internet; see > Section > > 8 for examples of such measures. > > > > i. IPv6 traffic with zero UDP checksums MUST be actively > monitored > > for errors by the network operator. For example, the operator > > may monitor Ethernet layer packet error rates. > > > > j. If a packet with a non-zero checksum is received, the > checksum > > MUST be verified before accepting the packet. This is > > regardless of whether the tunnel encapsulator and > decapsulator > > have been configured with UDP zero-checksum mode. > > > > The above requirements do not change either the requirements > > specified in [RFC2460] as modified by [RFC6935] or the > requirements > > specified in [RFC6936]. > > > > The requirement to check the source IPv6 address in addition > to the > > destination IPv6 address, plus the strong recommendation against > > reuse of source IPv6 addresses among GRE-in-UDP tunnels > collectively > > provide some mitigation for the absence of UDP checksum > coverage of > > the IPv6 header. A traffic-managed controlled environment that > > satisfies at least one of three conditions listed above in this > > section provides additional assurance. > > > > A GRE-in-UDP tunnel is suitable for transmission over lower > layers > > in the traffic-managed controlled environments that are > allowed by > > the exceptions stated above and the rate of corruption of the > inner > > IP packet on such networks is not expected to increase by > comparison > > to GRE traffic that is not encapsulated in UDP. For these > reasons, > > GRE-in-UDP does not provide an additional integrity check except > > when GRE checksum is used when UDP zero-checksum mode is used > with > > IPv6, and this design is in accordance with requirements 2, 3 > and 5 > > specified in Section 5 of [RFC6936]. > > > > Generic Router Encapsulation (GRE) does not accumulate incorrect > > state as a consequence of GRE header corruption. A corrupt GRE > > packet may result in either packet discard or forwarding of the > > packet without accumulation of GRE state. Active monitoring > of GRE- > > in-UDP traffic for errors is REQUIRED as occurrence of errors > will > > result in some accumulation of error information outside the > > protocol for operational and management purposes. This design > is in > > accordance with requirement 4 specified in Section 5 of > [RFC6936]. > > > > > > > > Yong, Crabber, Xu, Herbert > [Page 15] > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Internet-Draft GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation > March 2016 > > > > The remaining requirements specified in Section 5 of > [RFC6936] are > > not applicable to GRE-in-UDP. Requirements 6 and 7 do not apply > > because GRE does not include a control feedback mechanism. > > Requirements 8-10 are middlebox requirements that do not apply to > > GRE-in-UDP tunnel endpoints (see Section 7.1 for further > middlebox > > discussion). > > > > It is worth mentioning that the use of a zero UDP checksum should > > present the equivalent risk of undetected packet corruption when > > sending similar packet using GRE-in-IPv6 without UDP > [RFC7676] and > > without GRE checksums. > > > > In summary, a TMCE GRE-in-UDP Tunnel is allowed to use UDP-zero- > > checksum mode for IPv6 when the conditions and requirements > stated > > above are met. Otherwise the UDP checksum need to be used for > IPv6 > > as specified in [RFC768] and [RFC2460]. Use of GRE checksum is > > RECOMMENED when the UDP checksum is not used. > > " > > > > In GUE, to support UDP-checksum-zero, it said > > > > " Therefore, when GUE is used over > > IPv6, either the UDP checksum must be enabled or the GUE header > > checksum must be used. An encapsulator MAY set a zero UDP > checksum > > for performance or implementation reasons, in which case the GUE > > header checksum MUST be used or applicable requirements for using > > zero UDP checksums in [GREUDP] MUST be met. If the UDP > checksum is > > enabled, then the GUE header checksum should not be used > since it is > > mostly redundant." > > > > It's easy for me to add the similar words to the IP-in-UDP draft > like "the > > applicable requirements for using zero UDP checksum in [GREUDP] > MUST be > > met when zero UDP checksum is used by the tunnel ingress". > However, the > > major goal for disabling the UDP checksum is to improve the > performance. > > When GUE header checksum is used and/or the bunch of applicable > > requirements as described in GRE/UDP are verified, is the goal > of improving > > performance still achievable? If not, why not directly enable > the UDP-checksum > > instead? > > > > - fragmentation support > > > > In GRE/UDP, it said > > > > " 4.1. MTU and Fragmentation > > > > Regarding packet fragmentation, an encapsulator/decapsulator > SHOULD > > be compliant with [RFC7588] and perform fragmentation before the > > encapsulation. The size of fragments SHOULD be less or equal > to the > > PMTU associated with the path between the GRE ingress and the GRE > > egress tunnel endpoints minus the GRE and UDP overhead ..." > > > > in GUE, it said > > > > " 4.9. MTU and fragmentation > > > > Standard conventions for handling of MTU (Maximum > Transmission Unit) > > and fragmentation in conjunction with networking tunnels > > (encapsulation of layer 2 or layer 3 packets) should be followed. > > Details are described in MTU and Fragmentation Issues with > In-the- > > Network Tunneling [RFC4459]... " > > > > It seems that the only missing thing in the IP-in-UDP draft is > to allow the outer > > fragmentation. However, as it said in > > > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-02#page-13), > " ...IPsec > > performs only Outer Fragmentation; this distinguishes it from > IP-in-IP, which > > performs only Inner Fragmentation. " Note that IP-in-IP is the > dominant > > encapsulation choice within Softwires networks. In other words, > performing > > only inner fragmentation works very well in practice. > Furthermore, the outer > > fragmentation issue (e.g., reassembly cost for the egress) would > become even > > worse since the fragments of X-in-UDP packets are more likely to > be forwarded > > across different paths than those of X-in-IP and X-in-GRE > packets. Hence, I'm > > wondering whether it's worthwhile to support the outer > fragmentation on UDP > > encapsulated packets which seems useless in practice. > > > > - signalling support (e.g., to test whether a tunnel is up or > > to measure MTUs) > > > > I haven't found any description of this in both GRE/UDP and GUE. > Did you? > > > > - support for robust ID fields (related to fragmentation, > > e.g., to overcome the limits of IPv4 ID as per RFC 6864) > > > > I haven't found any description of this in both GRE/UDP and GUE. > Did you? > > > > Xiaohu > > > > > It is not our obligation to find a way for your document to > proceed - > > > that onus is on you. > > > > > > Joe >
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Wassim Haddad
- Re: [Int-area] [tsvwg] Is it feasible to perform … Joe Touch
- [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-intarea-… Wassim Haddad
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Black, David
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- [Int-area] Is it feasible to perform fragmentatio… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] [Softwires] Is it feasible to perf… otroan
- Re: [Int-area] Is it feasible to perform fragment… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] [lisp] [Softwires] Is it feasible … Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Is it feasible to perform fragment… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… joel jaeggli
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [Int-area] Is it feasible to perform fragment… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Black, David
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-inta… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] [nvo3] [Softwires] Is it feasible … Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] [nvo3] [Softwires] Is it feasible … Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] [nvo3] [Softwires] Is it feasible … Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] [nvo3] [Softwires] Is it feasible … Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] [nvo3] [Softwires] Is it feasible … Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Int-area] [Softwires] [nvo3] Is it feasible … Rémi Després
- Re: [Int-area] [nvo3] [Softwires] Is it feasible … Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] [nvo3] [Softwires] Is it feasible … Tom Herbert
- Re: [Int-area] [tsvwg] [nvo3] [Softwires] Is it f… Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Int-area] [tsvwg] Is it feasible to perform … Lloyd Wood
- Re: [Int-area] [nvo3] [tsvwg] Is it feasible to p… Saumya Dikshit (sadikshi)
- Re: [Int-area] [tsvwg] Is it feasible to perform … Tom Herbert