IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Greg Daley <gdaley@au.logicalis.com> Sun, 02 February 2014 23:33 UTC

Return-Path: <gdaley@au.logicalis.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 5C9541A013B; Sun, 2 Feb 2014 15:33:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.442
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RELAY_IS_203=0.994, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 1xqbq1I-33_H; Sun, 2 Feb 2014 15:32:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.au.logicalis.com (smtp2.au.logicalis.com [203.8.7.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A31A1A0139; Sun, 2 Feb 2014 15:32:57 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: None (smtp2.au.logicalis.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of gdaley@au.logicalis.com) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=203.8.7.161; receiver=smtp2.au.logicalis.com; envelope-from="gdaley@au.logicalis.com"; x-sender="gdaley@au.logicalis.com"; x-conformance=spf_only
Received-SPF: None (smtp2.au.logicalis.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@sdcexchht.au.logicalis.com) identity=helo; client-ip=203.8.7.161; receiver=smtp2.au.logicalis.com; envelope-from="gdaley@au.logicalis.com"; x-sender="postmaster@sdcexchht.au.logicalis.com"; x-conformance=spf_only
Received: from unknown (HELO sdcexchht.au.logicalis.com) ([203.8.7.161]) by smtp2.au.logicalis.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2014 10:32:53 +1100
Received: from SDCEXCHMS.au.logicalis.com ([10.18.196.50]) by sdcexchht.au.logicalis.com ([fe80::68b7:8880:fefb:f742%12]) with mapi id 14.02.0347.000; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:32:51 +1100
From: Greg Daley <gdaley@au.logicalis.com>
To: "'l.wood@surrey.ac.uk'" <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk>, "stbryant@cisco.com" <stbryant@cisco.com>, "jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu" <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AQHPHfHxZzPPQlRcgk6ua2U45NfiYJqd1tSwgAAZgQCAAAuhgIAEl8gA
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2014 23:32:50 +0000
Message-ID: <72381AF1F18BAE4F890A0813768D992817FDD8F3@sdcexchms.au.logicalis.com>
References: <20140130193200.7BBD018C1C1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <72381AF1F18BAE4F890A0813768D992817FDAB19@sdcexchms.au.logicalis.com>, <52EB800E.2090102@cisco.com> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E63346FE@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E63346FE@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.196.187]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Sun, 02 Feb 2014 23:33:01 -0000

I think it is feasible, but I haven't looked too hard into whether people want to achieve this, and what the impact is on the control plane.

Greg Daley

> -----Original Message-----
> From: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk [mailto:l.wood@surrey.ac.uk]
> Sent: Friday, 31 January 2014 10:33 PM
> To: stbryant@cisco.com; Greg Daley; jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu; ietf@ietf.org;
> mpls@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating
> MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard
> 
> RFC 6773. which requires a full udp checksum for nat traversal.
> 
> Lloyd Wood
> http://about.me/lloydwood
> ________________________________________
> From: ietf [ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
> [stbryant@cisco.com]
> Sent: 31 January 2014 10:50
> To: Greg Daley; 'Noel Chiappa'; ietf@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating
> MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard
> 
> On 30/01/2014 22:44, Greg Daley wrote:
> > Of course, in order to get the protocols to pass legacy firewall
> > inspection, UDP encapsulation may be required, and companies would
> > have to actually implement the protocol... Greg Daley
> > gdaley@au.logicalis.com
> So UDP/DCCP/MPLS ?
> 
> Stewart

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email