IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review

Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com> Wed, 21 January 2009 03:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: nemo-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-nemo-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC5263A6991; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:06:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E78E3A6991 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:06:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.546
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.053, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zsbD9-ISFuwh for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:06:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 317AA3A6863 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:06:02 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.37,297,1231113600"; d="scan'208";a="233585046"
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Jan 2009 03:05:46 +0000
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n0L35kjr014306; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:05:46 -0800
Received: from irp-view13.cisco.com (irp-view13.cisco.com [171.70.120.60]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0L35kvn021717; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 03:05:46 GMT
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:05:45 -0800
From: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
In-Reply-To: <C59B8208.B25F%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0901201859381.8008@irp-view13.cisco.com>
References: <C59B8208.B25F%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=849; t=1232507146; x=1233371146; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=sgundave@cisco.com; z=From:=20Sri=20Gundavelli=20<sgundave@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[MEXT]=20GRE=20support=20in=20DSMIPv6=2 0-=20AD=20review |Sender:=20; bh=n6lGarDETwbonYD4Vr7XGfWMKP4Xtrz0eCcUj1hMvCE=; b=mB3rbrwtd9trALxersLxs+RP2UqH53oHJ+lzkRHe9Lpg1G4skGtihZaxrI 7AWCY96kMX3hwrqWLzHOSgHmk7XtObYA9xtZHYID/m/O3/uXsy6eb6P4i74W Owk6DsFxKBVZa5l5hNeXE3n8jsZuz+aPtfs4LOVJDZ7ICrYhY4OhU=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=sgundave@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
Cc: mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: mext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Hesham Soliman wrote:

>>
>> The issue would be that this spec needs to understand the payload
>> qualifier, else we cant add themm later.
>
> => It's not true though. You can add the exact same thing that we have in
> the draft now but specify it in a more complete manner and it will be
> backward compatible and interoperable. The negotiation bit in the BU would
> have to be included in the new draft of course.
>

Leaving the TLV header alone in this draft will provide the
necessary frame work. Else, defining outside and mapping the
pre-allocated v4/v6 types, will appear more like a hack. Since,
Pasi's comment was more specific to GRE, not sure if it was
about the TLV alone, as there is much text required for TLV
nego, or for describing the TLV format, thats already there in
the draft.

Sri


_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email