Re: [nvo3] [Int-area] [trill] Fwd: Mail regarding draft-ietf-trill-over-ip

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Hi Xiaohu, Joe,



On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 10:19 PM, Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> I'm wondering whether your proposal as below is also applicable to other UDP-based encapsulation approaches which have not yet considered doing fragmentation on the tunnel layer, such as GENEVE, VXLAN-GPE, GRE-in-UDP and NSH-UDP.
>

This is a very good question.

Let me give draft links below for Joe in case he can not find them:

VXLAN-GPE: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00
GENEVE: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gross-geneve-02.txt

Regards,

Behcet
> Best regards,
> Xiaohu
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: trill [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Joe Touch
>> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 3:48 AM
>> To: Donald Eastlake; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [trill] Fwd: Mail regarding draft-ietf-trill-over-ip
>>
>> Hi, all,
>>
>> Have you considered GUE as an encapsulation layer?
>>
>> Encapsulating anything in UDP directly has a number of hazards, including
>> support for at-rate fragmentation, IPv4 ID generation, etc., that GUE is intended
>> to address.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> On 5/1/2015 9:58 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>> > Forwarded with permission.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Donald
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > From: *Donald Eastlake* <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> > Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:26 AM
>> > Subject: Re: Mail regarding draft-ietf-trill-over-ip
>> > To: Mingui Zhang <[e-mail]
>> > <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> >
>> > Hi Mingui,
>> >
>> > Thanks for these comments! See below.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Mingui Zhang <[e-mail]
>> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I read the document. It's comprehensive and well written. Below, several
>> comments for your information.
>> >>
>> >> 1.      It's not clear how the ports IPs are associated with the ports? Maybe,
>> we can add some words to explain that they can be got from DHCP or manual
>> configuration? Or we just say it is out the scope of this document.
>> >
>> > Yes, they need to be configured. Could be DHCP or manual or maybe some
>> > sort of orchestration thing... Seems reasonable to mention this in the
>> > draft.
>> >
>> >> 2.      Is it helpful to add a reference topology? Terminologies, such as IP
>> tunnel, port IPs, RBridges can be put onto this figure. A walk-through example
>> based on this reference topology can be used to explain how the IP tunnel is set
>> up, how does a TRILL Data packet get encapsulated/decapsulated and
>> transported in the IP tunnel. I think this would be educational.
>> >
>> > A few more network diagrams would probably be helpful. If you look at
>> > the minutes from the Dallas TRILL WG meeting, the suggestion of having
>> > a couple of example packets was supported...
>> >
>> >> 3.      Both IP and TRILL have specified BFD. Since TRILL is dependent on IP
>> in TRILL-over-IP, it's unnecessary to have both TRILL and IP interact with BFD. It's
>> best to assert TRILL-over-IP will have the IP interact with BFD. Please refer to
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5882#section-4.4
>> >
>> > Well, if you are only going to use one then I agree with the section
>> > you reference in RFC 5882 and you should do BFD over IP. But that
>> > doesn't check the TRILL stack, just the IP and lower stacks. So we
>> > could recommend just using IP BFD but I don't think we should try to
>> > prohibit people from also using BFD over TRILL on the link.
>> >
>> >> 4.      Is the IP link in this document "a single link (physical, or a secure
>> tunnel such as IPsec)"? Then, we can require the TTL "MUST be set to the
>> maximum on transmit, and checked to be equal to the maximum value on
>> reception (and the packet dropped if this is not the case)." See also RFC 5880
>> Section 9.
>> >
>> > I don't think so. There is nothing wrong with the communication
>> > between two TRILL IP ports being multiple IP hops. Even if IPsec is in
>> > use, it could be integrated with the TRILL over IP port at one end but
>> > at the other end, the IPsec implementation could be integrated with a
>> > firewall a couple of hops from the RBridge...
>> >
>> >> 5.      There are six tiny typos marked in the attached doc.
>> >
>> > OK. We'll fix this up in the next version.
>> >
>> > Maybe you should post these comments, or some of them, to the TRILL WG
>> > mailing list. It would be good if there was more discussion of drafts
>> > there. Or if it OK with you, I could just forward your comments and my
>> > responses to the list...
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Donald
>> > =============================
>> >  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] <tel:%2B1-508-333-2270> (cell)
>> >  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA  [e-mail]
>> > <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> >
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Mingui
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > trill mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> trill mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area