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

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

inline ..

On 6/21/16, 2:59 AM, "Zhoutianran" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>I think what Zongpeng mean is:
>
>1. Add "GRE" in section 3.2, in the line " This specification provides
>details for this elements for CAPWAP and PMIPv6."
>-->" This specification provides details for this elements for CAPWAP,
>PMIPv6 and GRE."
>Because GRE has already been discussed in this document, and there is no
>need to provide a specific document for GRE.


There is no need for additional document for GRE. All the required
information elements including GRE keys are included. Document has support
for GRE tunneling; If there is no support for GRE tunneling, we would not
have discussed about GRE Keys. I don’t think we can have one more section
for GRE. I don’t think we need additional section, but I can add a
sentence in GRE Key section.








>
>2. This document have section 3.6.6.  to describe the "GRE Key Element",
>but no text to specify where to insert this block. So, he suggest a new
>section 3.6 to specify that the "GRE Key Element" information should just
>follow the "Access Router Information Element".





>
>
>Best,
>Tianran
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: OPSAWG [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Duzongpeng
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 3:36 PM
>> To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); Warren Kumari; [e-mail]; John
>> Kaippallimalil; Liu Dapeng; Mark Grayson (mgrayson)
>> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Start of 2nd WGLC for
>> draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel
>> 
>> Hi, Sri
>> 
>> Thank you for your reply. I can repeat the reason.
>> 
>> In the current draft, section 3.2
>> 
>>    o  Info Element: This field contains tunnel specific configuration
>>       parameters to enable the WTP to setup the alternate tunnel.  This
>>       specification provides details for this elements for **CAPWAP and
>>       PMIPv6**.  This specification reserves the tunnel type values for
>>       the key tunnel types and defines the most common message elements.
>>       We anticipate that message elements for the other protocols (like
>>       L2TPv3, etc) will be defined in other specifications in the
>>       future.
>> 
>> And my suggestion is that GRE should also be provided.
>> Reason 1: GRE is a widely used and important tunnel type in WiFi
>>network.
>> Reason 2: I used to join in the work of this draft. I think we have
>>taken
>> this GRE type into consideration, but I do not know why it is missing
>>now.
>> I mean that GRE type should not be considered in other drafts as L2TP or
>> IP-IP, and should be considered just as **CAPWAP and PMIPv6** Reason 3:
>> I know that we have that section "3.6.6.  GRE Key Element". I think that
>> is just because we have taken this GRE type into consideration. But in
>>current
>> draft, on one hand, it is declared that only **CAPWAP and PMIPv6**'s
>>details
>> are provided; on the other hand, this section 3.6.6 provides details of
>> GRE. They conflicts. My suggestion is to add a new section 3.6, and
>>change
>> the declaration to "This specification provides details for this
>>elements
>> for **CAPWAP, PMIPv6, and GRE**"
>> 
>> 	Hope no misunderstanding here. If any problem, please connect me.
>>Thanks.
>> 
>> Best Regards
>> Zongpeng Du
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 12:15 PM
>> To: Duzongpeng; Warren Kumari; [e-mail]; John Kaippallimalil; Liu
>> Dapeng; Mark Grayson (mgrayson)
>> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Start of 2nd WGLC for
>> draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OPSAWG mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg