Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Thu, 16 February 2017 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.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 3E5A71296E9; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:29:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 SCYJ35XzrAJz; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:29:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x242.google.com (mail-wm0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::242]) (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 8D423129541; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:29:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x242.google.com with SMTP id r18so4991354wmd.3; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:29:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=J1iz2LwaFavlvtuubgS3GA1kYV5QHMrJzw/sHBW46M0=; b=tlgU1Q9TsgAl2F1UfRetAlDfvJ0b9eGU64N4Q3nyLRgok2qURIYFZJKPnTKcLVW2VN kJkNpMmtQzfEfkQFXmGjAFGJHBUXG7ezujTyD7/Pl3o8ilmETGeTXxyB3jQpX938RStM rJZNmYL9ajHktG4+vV9oHmbqr14CPN4EFak4hvfKH6WpC7rF5m5h3QNBykwgDKoQqGcw Gxze/5130JjjPw5QO4g68Qvem8gGAU63e6VT9n/uqRgxC4+hRf4sWsvP9KkGIvFBPgxb HCWX2tQYKQIlrWmotcTelGfAhWQlPqq+W1rO2O6qbnZmKeLpZGQFHOrwz82SA4tqEAlX ovbg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=J1iz2LwaFavlvtuubgS3GA1kYV5QHMrJzw/sHBW46M0=; b=FWtB+SYXRCG/joB6R5dZv3j0B0xsb089kCYmH872Gv/1O3N+g/Qx2+IWGmpzmgV7Ld 0/iV6Ga4+3NiQ+3HCXo+6/ORgJkPdqrIiw2SSXXWFoVzsGxQx35wo9bLJNiQVHzx6j4P FsKJLNtX2+6n1AH3a3DDYlVr8dFFeddUYhhWJFVLog/HjiH3nXU4BWJV1CzDp6viZNJW G8bkfM64xRLgwo5lPoPOce3xbN/FfM76esQt21Gt7k3AnjNWuv7IYzilMUYV3lLbsqC5 SQpZFjBN4nwVSAq7F2i4/+CfD0BsZGBUqELbfGb6ndZsd7K86w+Uz7vyft0/60vCWIvT 1n6w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kdyrRU2wvcNNlH860ZKj4uZJS2gKnh0jNNwzVhE+UFSu93Pvll5aH89JPHS0Iygw==
X-Received: by 10.28.11.83 with SMTP id 80mr4280124wml.71.1487280543693; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:29:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.126] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d29sm1702337wmi.19.2017.02.16.13.29.02 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:29:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>, "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
References: <148665359396.20513.9749548375095869760.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <2997d33f-3884-7831-50ed-1713c93b3867@gmail.com> <b9dfd941-0eba-c257-fef4-2f5e6bbd82a8@gmail.com> <078b28a9a26540da9e4caaba4c436cd3@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <440c60d3-0687-c7f1-f8b6-19620e6f618a@gmail.com> <6cb665e0a2244dae93e1b5b91bd9495a@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <fce8c0ef-25b7-9ba7-a5bf-9b5d7f2b19fc@gmail.com> <f4f81574e09e45169438d39afeb83369@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <1fb9a3ad-19e5-0b35-d15a-e74fed88bb8b@gmail.com> <cb03ceda3ecb4241ad867302a3195bf4@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <01055a07-c5b6-b9c2-f953-ad6aa45de511@gmail.com> <e6176571-2ff9-dd63-11b3-c713d61eebe2@isi.edu>
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4c6539a9-75d1-81b8-be1e-5f5b26c10750@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 21:29:02 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e6176571-2ff9-dd63-11b3-c713d61eebe2@isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/jQWS8gwbJP_1M8EaA7FiTLsO63M>
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis.all@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 21:29:08 -0000


On 16/02/2017 18:49, Joe Touch wrote:
>
> On 2/16/2017 7:59 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>>
>> On 14/02/2017 23:00, Templin, Fred L wrote:
>>> Unless there is operational assurance of
>>> some size X>1280, however, tunnels have to use fragmentation to
>>> guarantee that - at a minimum - packets up to 1280 will get through.
>> In that case there really needs to be a note about MPLS.
> IMO, this doc shouldn't be discussing tunneling as any different from
> any other link.
>
>> You can fragment into an IP tunnel, but not an MPLS tunnel, because
>> you cannot fragment the payload as you can in IPv4 and you cannot
>> fragment MPLS.
> There's no such thing as an "MPLS tunnel";

In the MPLS world an "MPLS tunnel" is a common name for an MPLS LSP that
is used to carry some payload such as IP.

> at best, it's "MPLS over X",
> e.g., MPLS over ethernet. MPLS doesn't indicate a message length so
> while it can't support fragmentation it would never need it either. It
> would be the next layer down (e.g., Ethernet, ATM, etc.) that might have
> needed fragmentation.  If that can't be supported, then the addition of
> MPLS would just reduce the effective MTU of the MPLS-over-X link.

It was of course IPv6 over MPLS that concerned me.

S

>
> Joe