Re: [mpls] draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp was RE: gre-in-udp draft (was: RE: [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG)

Lloyd and Randy,

With respect to draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp, this is why we have IETF last calls, so
thanks for the comments.

We did take the precaution of sending this I-D for an early TSV Directorate
review because of the concern about a number of factors and the overlap with
tsvwg work, but the review came back "clean". Of course, such a review is just
one person, so this conversation is good.

Wrt zero checksum, where do you stand on nested checksums? There is some claim
that they represent a waste of processing. I am not convinced by that when each
layer is using dedicated hardware (that can presumably process checksums at line
speed), but I am interested in the consequences for cheap hardware and for
software implementations (as have been claimed to be some of the motivations for
this work).

Other TSV-related issues that surely pop up are:
- allocation of ports for foo-in-UDP
- congestion control

Please note that there are a number of I-Ds that you missed in your broad sweep
of "I am opposed". You should probably look at the NVGRE and VXLAN work (which I
think is lurking around the NVO3 working group) because that is also looking at
UDP encaps of a tunnelling protocol.

Thanks,
Adrian

Health warnings:
I am responsible AD for draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp
I am a co-author of the gre-in-udp draft.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
> Sent: 09 January 2014 08:07
> To: randy@psg.com
> Cc: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk; mpls@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; david.black@emc.com;
> tsvwg@ietf.org; jnc@mit.edu; lisp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls] draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp was RE: gre-in-udp draft (was: RE:
> [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG)
> 
> Randy,
> 
> okay, let  tsvwg adopt draft-yong-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap, and let's get
> consensus on  it. And then the authors can adopt that consensus for
mpls-in-udp,
> which overlaps in authorship...
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Lloyd Wood
> http://about.me/lloydwood
> ________________________________________
> From: Randy Bush [randy@psg.com]
> Sent: 09 January 2014 07:51
> To: Wood L  Dr (Electronic Eng)
> Cc: david.black@emc.com; gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk; ietf@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org;
> jnc@mit.edu; lisp@ietf.org; tsvwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp was RE: gre-in-udp draft (was: RE: [tsvwg]
> Milestones changed for tsvwg WG)
> 
> > Because they specify zero UDP checksums,
> > I oppose publication of draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp in its current form
> > I oppose tsvwg adoption of draft-yong-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap in its current
> form.
> > I oppose the IETF lisp documents.
> 
> lloyd,
> 
> i think i understand your position.  but i disagree with preventing wg
> adoption of draft-yong-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap, mainly because i strongly
> see wg adoption as how we get to discuss and work on a document, not as
> approval of the document.  as david said, i think we need to discuss it
> so we can decide if it should be fixed.  to do so, we have to adopt it.
> 
> randy
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls