IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review on draft-farrelll-mpls-opportunistic-encrypt-04.txt

Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> Mon, 18 May 2015 09:49 UTC

Return-Path: <mach.chen@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBF3E1A885E for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 May 2015 02:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 8m4O2gXzflUc for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 May 2015 02:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51D971A8859 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 May 2015 02:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BWF10719; Mon, 18 May 2015 09:49:26 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.72) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 18 May 2015 10:49:23 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.243]) by SZXEMA413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.72]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 18 May 2015 17:49:19 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "draft-farrelll-mpls-opportunistic-encrypt@tools.ietf.org" <draft-farrelll-mpls-opportunistic-encrypt@tools.ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] MPLS-RT review on draft-farrelll-mpls-opportunistic-encrypt-04.txt
Thread-Index: AdCQ7NL1z5h+rMCfRh6yaHESNfVWmwAJHA2A///zgYD//3eMoA==
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 09:49:19 +0000
Message-ID: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE28B44FB55@SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <031b01d090ec$dcfe0160$96fa0420$@olddog.co.uk> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE28B448942@SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com> <039d01d0914e$14723510$3d569f30$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <039d01d0914e$14723510$3d569f30$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.102.135]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/197P4_O6gtd4jTDIvu1P47Pzecg>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review on draft-farrelll-mpls-opportunistic-encrypt-04.txt
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 09:49:30 -0000

Hi Adrian,

> > > More likely to be an issue is how to handle OAM on the LSP that has
> > > end-to-end encryption but where the OAM is targeted at a transit
> > > node. That is the issue that needs further exploration.
> >
> > Yes, traceroute is such a typical scenario. For end-to-end encryption,
> > the
> transit
> > nodes should not (and for OS purpose, it MUST not) know how to decrypt
> > the packets, then traceroute will fail.
> 
> Yup.
> The thing I'd like to look at is whether it would be OK to run the OAM
> (specifically intermediate-node action OAM) without encryption. 

Seems that this is the only feasible way to go. 

>But I think there are some issues with ECMP.

Indeed, you have to introduce EL then.

> 


Best regards,
Mach

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email