Re: [mpls] 答复: MPLS WG last call on draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-03.txt

Sriganesh Kini <sriganesh.kini@ericsson.com> Wed, 25 September 2013 23:14 UTC

Return-Path: <sriganeshkini@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6B0C21F98AC for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:14:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.638
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.638 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 62zl0ovxRI9M for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22f.google.com (mail-pd0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48D2D21F9B25 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f175.google.com with SMTP id q10so313090pdj.20 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=XB+d2PTKaq04m6gsroApXJhJKJLkIRVm1pm4OYjhFXI=; b=uyTXLQuZ6Zh4FB8/T3nbvXyJ0opRrepXPILofWr/dSRcCQ2uYFHTfp0Ki8iphjMIdg jMMDz1QqU0/xkDsFv4pmSyLWxSTcLbl+52YEn/exgNkUtfYrrOqLDN6LV2cBjaaNATQX XBC+KBtsa6hYCUea/WEHLn5qQf7tZUNqjP9/NRnyvp8LbEAag9K7nE6/8ebVCeh4Gxp3 zA/csPNTGNLtEBQM22fN43pz877wtPJjcbL2B2PHUr/NxXY5XU7L3+91Rd78p5vCP54i bEM7YwY3ZfiEbJ4zIlkPsYTFPiLb8cAS7ktNszSjy7aTwmI+9VRC0z6dKOv/0OazbeMl fIhQ==
X-Received: by 10.68.169.161 with SMTP id af1mr36044039pbc.22.1380150864012; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: sriganeshkini@gmail.com
Received: by 10.70.0.225 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE082115B5@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <98952a55996f40da8cbcb663561f580b@BLUPR05MB070.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAOndX-tKDYahywihZ8fAv3MyRRUHW2=cNG+FSfkNucpcLws0tw@mail.gmail.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE08211182@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <CAOndX-uiMYt_m=jxhPnr6v_cDRn1ZHeDzgjBDF74-_6TUzpzgQ@mail.gmail.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE082115B5@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
From: Sriganesh Kini <sriganesh.kini@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:13:53 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 72lo6fTpspa8D3N04Nu9C5IpLuM
Message-ID: <CAOndX-v+0-=S7gxMbjHC384w_gvpNO5kNQQYNcUYwwTjD826Xw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bd76b3afc6daf04e73d6936"
Cc: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "fanyb@gsta.com" <fanyb@gsta.com>
Subject: Re: [mpls] 答复: MPLS WG last call on draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-03.txt
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 23:14:29 -0000

Hi Xu,

I read the other draft you pointed to and I don't see how that helps. What
I had said earlier was that having a protocol-id in a header following the
UDP header but before the user payload (in this draft the MPLS packet is
the user payload) keeps the design generic and any protocol (not just MPLS
applications) can then use such an encapsulation. Standardizing UDP port
numbers to denote protocol types consumes the port number space and is
unnecessary. Another important point is that developing OAM using a header
after the UDP hdr but before the user-payload is easier.

- Sri


On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> wrote:

>  Hi Sri,****
>
> ** **
>
> It’s no problem provided that anybody was willing to use VXLAN-GPE to
> replace the existing MPLS-based applications such as L2 or L3 VPN services.
> Furthermore, there is another choice for VXLAN extension other than
> VXLAN-GPE, which has been described in
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yong-l3vpn-nvgre-vxlan-encap-00. I’m
> willing to hear your further comments on the comparison of these two
> options for VXLAN extension (Maybe MPLS WG is not a suitable place to talk
> about this topic).****
>
> ** **
>
> Xiaohu****
>
> ** **
>
> *发件人:* sriganeshkini@gmail.com [mailto:sriganeshkini@gmail.com] *代表 *Sriganesh
> Kini
> *发送时间:* 2013年9月24日 3:40
> *收件人:* Xuxiaohu
> *抄送:* Ross Callon; mpls@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org;
> fanyb@gsta.com
> *主题:* Re: [mpls] 答复: MPLS WG last call on draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-03.txt***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> Hi Xu,****
>
> ** **
>
> The existing encapsulations you pointed out were defined a long time ago.
> Whereas the other two are just being proposed now. Moreover if we follow
> this approach it will require standardizing UDP port numbers for each new
> protocol to encap into UDP.****
>
> ** **
>
> - Sri****
>
> ** **
>
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> wrote:***
> *
>
> Hi Sri,****
>
>  ****
>
> *发件人:* mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] *代表 *Sriganesh
> Kini
> *发送时间:* 2013年9月21日 7:06
> *收件人:* Ross Callon
> *抄送:* mpls@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org; fanyb@gsta.com
> *主题:* Re: [mpls] MPLS WG last call on draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-03.txt****
>
>  ****
>
> There is no reference cited for the "MPLS-in-IP" encapsulation.****
>
>  ****
>
> [Xiaohu] MPLS-in-IP and MPLS-in-GRE are actually specified in the same RFC
> that is RFC4023.****
>
>  ****
>
> What is the applicability of this encapsulation compared to the
> generalized mechanism in draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe ?****
>
>  ****
>
> [Xiaohu] The applicability of this encapsulation is the same as the
> existing IP-based encapsulations for MPLS (e.g., MPLS-in-GRE).****
>
>  ****
>
> Best regards,****
>
> Xiaohu****
>
>  ****
>
> - Sri****
>
>  ****
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> wrote:*
> ***
>
> Working Group,****
>
>  ****
>
> This is to start Working Group last call on  draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-03.txt
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> Please send your comments to the mpls working group mailing list (
> mpls@ietf.org).****
>
>  ****
>
> Please send both technical comments, and (if you are happy with the
> document as is) ****
>
> also send indications of support.****
>
>  ****
>
> There is one IPR claim that applies to this draft, which can be seen at:**
> **
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1941/****
>
>  ****
>
> The coauthors and contributor have indicated that they don’t know of any
> other ****
>
> IPR applicable to this draft. If anyone else in the working group is aware
> of IPR ****
>
> claims against this draft, the time to disclose that is now.****
>
>  ****
>
> This working group last call will end on September 27, 2013.****
>
>  ****
>
> Ross****
>
> for the wg co-chairs****
>
>  ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls****
>
>  ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>