Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review

[Hesham Soliman <[e-mail]>]

> 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>> Behalf Of [e-mail]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:54 AM
>> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> 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:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: 14 January, 2009 14:23
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>> 


_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext