IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> Tue, 21 January 2014 12:07 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@netapp.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 E5C301A0092 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 04:07:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Uoulz6XhRHJE for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 04:07:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx11.netapp.com (mx11.netapp.com [216.240.18.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B021F1A006A for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 04:07:37 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.95,696,1384329600"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="97213246"
Received: from vmwexceht02-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.240]) by mx11-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 21 Jan 2014 04:07:37 -0800
Received: from SACEXCMBX06-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.9.60]) by vmwexceht02-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.240]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 04:07:38 -0800
From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AQHPFjGjZzPPQlRcgk6ua2U45NfiYJqOw4KAgADURICAAAStgA==
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:07:35 +0000
Message-ID: <558A15A9-204A-4447-923C-58DC2A3CED8A@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>
In-Reply-To: <52DE5F19.1060907@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.106.53.51]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8A98B6E9-85F5-4702-B782-B2F0BEC5D315"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
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
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 12:07:39 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email