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

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

Just a naive question: during re-chartering discussion, it was proposed a work item for the use of GRE tunnelling mechanism in Mobile IPv6. But this item has not been included in the charter. So, I'm wondering if there is still some plan to work on (except draft-ietf-netlmm-grekey-option in NetLMM WG)? If yes, maybe it could solve the issue.

Regards,
Pierrick

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de
> Hesham Soliman
> Envoyé : vendredi 16 janvier 2009 02:00
> À : Vijay Devarapalli; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc : Jari Arkko
> Objet : Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review
> 
> 
> > 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
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext