IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard

Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Tue, 21 January 2014 12:29 UTC

Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.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 941B01A00CD for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 04:29:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.036
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 Fz_Mhi6-jRZK for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 04:29:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB0521A00C8 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 04:29:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1019; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1390307343; x=1391516943; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TJIlpsBFnZ6KHsYRqeAOFHJOiCZNxDCu4UWv9jbwUzM=; b=WgLD76UO0F5RepGytb69yP54axImxqADUURbfU/NzybsBgy2acz+TFCv rKpqtY0siyRqubWtOFhZrXp5WEqJl/LRactlA9jrXc7ocoYDPAGQYHAIP UjZJTovahLpR5xo6ixDXU+9lJKWakfG2TTICgRyKA3cRc71nm/iSj1vzS s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgwFABRn3lKQ/khN/2dsb2JhbABZgwu8d4EQFnSCJQEBAQQ4QRALGAkaCw8CRgYNAQUCAQGIAcQMF45/B4Q4AQOYIpIYgW+BPg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,696,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="3273979"
Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Jan 2014 12:29:01 +0000
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0LCT1jF006155 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:29:02 GMT
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id s0LCT08k016251; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:29:00 GMT
Message-ID: <52DE680C.30704@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:29:00 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
References: Your message of "Fri, 17 Jan 2014 23:00:33 +0000." <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E63346D1@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>, <201401202247.s0KMllSl047284@maildrop2.v6ds.occnc.com> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E63346D6@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk> <52DE5F19.1060907@cisco.com> <558A15A9-204A-4447-923C-58DC2A3CED8A@netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <558A15A9-204A-4447-923C-58DC2A3CED8A@netapp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
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: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:29:04 -0000

On 21/01/2014 12:07, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2014-1-21, at 12:50, Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> wrote:
>> In terms of congestion and misdelivery it is interesting looking
>> at the number of horses that are already bounding around
>> in the paddock outside the stable:
>>
>> IP types: 47 (GRE) and 137 (MPLS-in-IP) for example.
> there is a big difference between encapsulation in IP and encapsulation in UDP. Everything encapsulated with "obscure" IP protocol numbers will get dropped by default at NATs and firewalls, whereas UDO traffic happily traverses them. The reach of UDP traffic is much broader.
>
> Lars
So we have established that it's not the load on the NATs and Firewalls 
we are worried about.

Seemingly from the above congestion is off the table as well.

Now surely those same NATs and firewalls will be looking for an SA, DA, 
Type, SP, DP match
and that is a lot of things that have to be right for a header 
corruption misdelivery to get
through.

- Stewart

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email