Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review
Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com> Fri, 16 January 2009 01:00 UTC
Return-Path: <mext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mip6-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-mip6-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C31703A6842; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:00:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 628013A6842 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:00:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.546
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.053, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 1yqUNZHU6Lq0 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:00:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-2.servers.netregistry.net (smtp.netregistry.net [202.124.241.204]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D6E93A63EC for <mext@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:00:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [124.190.106.160] (helo=[192.168.0.187]) by smtp-2.servers.netregistry.net protocol: esmtpa (Exim 4.63 #1 (Debian)) id 1LNd4P-0005sn-57; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:00:21 +1100
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.15.0.081119
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:00:13 +1100
From: Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
To: Vijay Devarapalli <vijay@wichorus.com>, Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com, mext@ietf.org
Message-ID: <C596274D.B18A%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
Thread-Topic: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review
Thread-Index: Acl2Qty8AAnKSyLlR0eCYUg0kSOoIQAxLqsAAA1z7DAADhiRqQ==
In-Reply-To: <DE33046582DF324092F2A982824D6B030525D193@mse15be2.mse15.exchange.ms>
Mime-version: 1.0
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: mext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org
> Hi Pasi, Hesham, > > The TLV header was specified in the DS-MIPv6 document after rather a > long and acrimonious debate on the former MIP6 mailing list. There were > atleast two consensus calls that were run at that time. => I don't realy want to get into that, we all know there was no concensus and we had to teleconference to come up with the existing method Anytime you have > a UDP header with IPv4/IPv6/GRE header following it, you need the TLV > header. At that time, there were folks arguing for using GRE > encapsulation with MIPv6 also. PMIPv6 IPv4 support was not the only > scenario for the TLV header. We are overturning that consensus now. > Maybe folks who were arguing for the TLV header with DS-MIPv6, are > either busy/not looked at this thread yet/or not on the MEXT mailing > list/etc.. :) > > Moving the TLV header into a separate document at this point would > impact draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support. I don't think the TLV > header document can be standardized fast enough => Can't this be copied and pasted into the netlmm draft and of course elaborated upon to add Pasi's request? for > draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support to advance. One option would be to > move the TLV header and the text that describes how to negotiate it, to > either draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support or > draft-ietf-netlmm-grekey-option. > > My suggestion would be to leave the TLV header in the DS-MIPv6 document. > Have some text that says the following. If UDP encapsulation is used > with DS-MIPv6 port, there could be IPv4, IPv6, GRE or some other header > that might follow the UDP header. If there is anything other than the > IPv4 or IPv6 header, the TLV header would be required. The use of GRE or > some other protocol after the TLV header is not specified and is out of > scope in the DS-MIPv6 document. => This is what Pasi is objecting to. Hesham > > Vijay > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com >> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:54 AM >> To: hesham@elevatemobile.com; mext@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review >> >> Hesham, >> >> I would strongly suggest moving the whole TLV header text to the >> separate GRE document. >> >> In particular, if you assign a number for GRE in this document, >> you either need to describe how it works here, or have a normative >> reference to the NETLMM spec. >> >> Best regards, >> Pasi >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ext Hesham Soliman [mailto:hesham@elevatemobile.com] >>> Sent: 14 January, 2009 14:23 >>> To: mext@ietf.org >>> Cc: Eronen Pasi (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki) >>> Subject: GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review >>> >>> Folks, >>> >>> Part of Pasi's review for DSMIPv6 was a comment on the lack of >>> specification for GRE support in the spec. He said it was vastly >>> under-specified, no details on the tunnelling, setting of different >>> parts of the GRE header ...etc. >>> >>> I suggested that we don't explicitly mention GRE in the spec but we >>> keep the TLV tunnelling format and reserve the numbers for NETLMM to >>> specify exactly how it will be used in a separate document. I think >>> you would agree that this is largely driven by NETLMM needs and we >>> shouldn't specify the details in MEXT. Pasi was ok with that. >>> >>> Please express your opinion on this soon because Pasi's comments are >>> the last comments for the draft and I want to handle them by Monday >>> at the latest. >>> >>> Please avoid discussing the merits of GRE....etc, the question is: >>> >>> Are there any objections to removing explicit references to GRE >>> while reserving the numbers in the TLV header for it to be specified >>> clearly in NETLMM? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Hesham >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
- [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Giaretta, Gerardo
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Basavaraj Patil
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Pasi.Eronen
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review George Tsirtsis
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review George Tsirtsis
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review George Tsirtsis
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review George Tsirtsis
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Basavaraj Patil
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Pasi.Eronen
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Vijay Devarapalli
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Vijay Devarapalli
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Pasi.Eronen
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review pierrick.seite
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review pierrick.seite
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Pasi.Eronen
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Basavaraj Patil
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Basavaraj Patil
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review Pasi.Eronen