Re: [OPSAWG] Start of 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel

["Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Zongpeng,


We do have support for the following encapsulation types and we also have
a section for the GRE keys. The Access Router information element is
already there. So, I don¹t see why we need one more section.

Can you clarify what is not clear from the below text ?

‹-
o  Tunnel-Type: The tunnel type is specified by a 2 byte value.  This
      specification defines the values from zero (0) to five (5) as
      given below.  The remaining values are reserved for future use.

      *  0: CAPWAP.  This refers to a CAPWAP data channel described in
         [RFC5415][RFC5416].

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 10, 2016              [Page
12]Internet-Draft             Alternate-- Tunnel                  June 2016

      *  1: L2TP.  This refers to tunnel encapsulation described in
         [RFC2661].

      *  2: L2TPv3.  This refers to tunnel encapsulation described in
         [RFC3931].

      *  3: IP-in-IP.  This refers to tunnel encapsulation described in
         [RFC2003].

      *  4: PMIPv6-UDP.  This refers to the UDP tunneling encapsulation
         described in [RFC5844].

      *  5: GRE.  This refers to GRE tunnel encapsulation as described
         in [RFC2784].

      *  6: GTPv1-U.  This refers to GTPv1 user plane mode as described
         in [TS29281].

‹-



‹-

3.6.6.  GRE Key Element

   If a WTP receives the GRE Key Element in the Alternate Tunnel
   Encapsulation message element for GRE selection, the WTP must insert
   the GRE Key to the encapsulation packet (see [RFC2890]).  An AR
   acting as decapsulating tunnel endpoint identifies packets belonging
   to a traffic flow based on the Key value.

   The GRE Key Element field contains a four octet number defined in
   [RFC2890].

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 10, 2016              [Page
19]Internet-Draft             Alternate-- Tunnel                  June 2016

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | GRE Key Element Type          |        Length                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                GRE Key                                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                        Figure 15: GRE Key Element

   GRE Key: The Key field contains a four octet number which is inserted
   by the WTP according to [RFC2890].





3.6.1.  Access Router Information Elements


Š




On 6/16/16, 5:33 AM, "OPSAWG on behalf of Duzongpeng"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Generally, I support the adoption of the draft.
>
>I have posted a suggestion about adding the GRE tunnel type for the
>draft. Will the author consider it? Thanks.
>
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg04165.html
>
>Best Regards
>Zongpeng Du
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: OPSAWG [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Warren Kumari
>Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 2:04 AM
>To: [e-mail]; John Kaippallimalil; Liu Dapeng; [e-mail]
>Subject: [OPSAWG] Start of 2nd WGLC for
>draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel
>
>Dear OpsAWG WG,
>
>This begins a WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel - this WGLC
>ends on June 29th.
>
>This is the second WGLC for this document - it initially successfully
>passed WGLC in August 2014
>(https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg03522.html)
>and was handed to the IESG for publication in early September 2014.
>
>After it was sent to the IESG (in Feb 2015) a very similar draft appeared
>- draft-you-opsawg-capwap-separation-for-mp. We realized that two, very
>similar documents, with significant overlap would be confusing, and so we
>requested that draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel be returned to the WG
>and asked the authors to merge them into one document. There was some
>delays, but this has finally been completed.
>
>The WG is requested to review the document and provide (clear) feedback
>on if you believe it is ready for publication. If not, please provide
>suggestions for improvement / text.
>
>Please note: Even if you said it was great on the first WGLC, it is very
>useful to repeat this comment now!
>
>W
>
>
>--
>I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea
>in the first place.
>This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
>regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
>pants.
>   ---maf
>
>_______________________________________________
>OPSAWG mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>
>_______________________________________________
>OPSAWG mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg