IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-dong-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id-01

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Wed, 29 July 2020 13:39 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB3423A0B13 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 06:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 2VIIuj6mOPuE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 06:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 521E93A0B0D for <6man@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 06:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BGvmT1gz9z1p4Y9; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 06:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1596029993; bh=BxNRerrDNekt5z2bOpNYYgOUMGdEMuyoYOBTcgWzkZ0=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Il5IsV1gdfvbvEeimGv8zSZfqFBmDHjbnCwsPL6WztW9VKEjK1OgBC949w/1FnriK Wwkv5nqwKNWZeFdUP3s8XXtm/8mFothgSlgZNQ0OuouMVoqFOtq/VS0pGcKhiB6DE1 kKnRser9QSbk7EpJZN1QyhJlLjPWr2/EpQGjrTxA=
X-Quarantine-ID: <R9bKTqox0EgI>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.42.2] (mobile-166-171-56-75.mycingular.net [166.171.56.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BGvmS0sFGz1p4Vs; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 06:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: draft-dong-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id-01
To: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
References: <DM6PR05MB6348F564EE4A9470553B0A8AAE730@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <d579687dd60141b3902706539292a0c4@huawei.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <3742736f-14b5-ab76-3e9d-d9ad0395eca2@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 09:39:50 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d579687dd60141b3902706539292a0c4@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/bNY92TRmf4cWBreb7vFNUmrPCB4>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:39:55 -0000

It is unclear to me whether you are asserting that DSCP is 
insufficiently granular to represent the desired treatment, or whether 
youa re asking for an in-packet identifier that does not affect packet 
queueing or forwarding?

Yours,
Joel

On 7/29/2020 3:43 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
> Hi Ron,
> 
> Thanks for your review and comment.
> 
> Your interpretation is in the right direction, while the relationship 
> between VTN-ID and DSCP could be considered as in a hierarchical manner, 
> and each is for different purpose. VTN-ID is used to consistently 
> identify a virtual network with a group of network resources allocated 
> from the network, there is no priority difference between VTNs. DSCP is 
> used to provide class (priority) based traffic differentiation, which 
> can be used within VTN.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jie
> 
> *From:*ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Ron Bonica
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 29, 2020 1:45 AM
> *To:* 6man@ietf.org
> *Subject:* draft-dong-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id-01
> 
> Co-authors,
> 
> In Section 4.2, you say:
> 
> “There can be different implementations of reserving local network
> 
>     resources to the VTNs.  On each interface, the resources allocated to
> 
>     a particular VTN can be seen as a virtual sub-interface with
> 
>     dedicated bandwidth and other associated resources.  In packet
> 
>     forwarding, the IPv6 destination address of the received packet is
> 
>     used to identify the next-hop and the outgoing interface, and the VTN
> 
>     ID is used to further identify the virtual sub-interface which is
> 
>     associated with the VTN on the outgoing interface.”
> 
> I interpret this as meaning:
> 
> -The IPv6 destination address is solely responsible for identifying the 
> IP next hop
> 
> -The VTNI, along with the DSCP bits, determine how the packet is 
> forwarded to the next-hop
> 
> So, I can think of the VTNI as “more DSCP bits”.
> 
> Do I have that right?
> 
>                                                                    Ron
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email