[Pals] 答复: draft-zzhang-intarea-generic-delivery-functions

"Yangfan (IP Standard)" <shirley.yangfan@huawei.com> Mon, 18 January 2021 10:24 UTC

Return-Path: <shirley.yangfan@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE81C3A122C; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 02:24:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4ulz8hWB0QOk; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 02:24:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB4163A1229; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 02:24:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml741-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4DK79Q5Qy1z67dGQ; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 18:21:14 +0800 (CST)
Received: from nkgeml701-chm.china.huawei.com ( by fraeml741-chm.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:24:20 +0100
Received: from nkgeml701-chm.china.huawei.com ( by nkgeml701-chm.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 18:24:18 +0800
Received: from nkgeml701-chm.china.huawei.com ([]) by nkgeml701-chm.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 15.01.2106.002; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 18:24:18 +0800
From: "Yangfan (IP Standard)" <shirley.yangfan@huawei.com>
To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, "pals@ietf.org" <pals@ietf.org>
CC: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: draft-zzhang-intarea-generic-delivery-functions
Thread-Index: Adbo7ZVM2l5i/x7jTG2A02P2JCK+DQEg/7JQ
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:24:18 +0000
Message-ID: <d693af734e0a49c9ab4b6450e6cdac02@huawei.com>
References: <MN2PR05MB59813CFC28F62CC076364991D4AA0@MN2PR05MB5981.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR05MB59813CFC28F62CC076364991D4AA0@MN2PR05MB5981.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pals/HsIQcoBqansXCQSGy63d4jObEds>
Subject: [Pals] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogZHJhZnQtenpoYW5nLWludGFyZWEtZ2VuZXJp?= =?gb2312?b?Yy1kZWxpdmVyeS1mdW5jdGlvbnM=?=
X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." <pals.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pals/>
List-Post: <mailto:pals@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:24:30 -0000

Hi authors,

The idea of a shim layer to provide the generic delivery function is interesting. I have 3 questions for clarification.

1. The draft request a new number of Internet Protocol Number registry for GDFH, I assume in this case, GDFH is used together with IP header. I wonder what the benefit is to have this generic header other than directly specifying the functionality as the next header? 
2. If the GDFH is used with MPLS, what is the difference compared to G-ACh? 
3. If you suggest to use one uniform encapsulation in Figure 2 for IP/MPLS/BIER, starting with 0000 would make sense when it is encapsulated in MPLS, but seems unnecessary in IP. Because in IP, usually 5-tuple is used for hashing algorithm. First 4 zeroes don't help to avoid the hashing problem. 

Best regards, 

发件人: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
发送时间: 2021年1月12日 22:27
收件人: int-area@ietf.org; mpls <mpls@ietf.org>rg>; pals@ietf.org
抄送: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>et>; Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
主题: [mpls] draft-zzhang-intarea-generic-delivery-functions


I just posted https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zzhang-intarea-generic-delivery-functions/.

The initial version was posted to the tsvwg (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zzhang-tsvwg-generic-transport-functions-00). After discussions/feedback we are re-homing it to intarea wg. This new version also contains quite some changes based on the comments and feedback that we received (special thanks to Stewart).

Comments and suggestions are appreciated.


Juniper Business Use Only

mpls mailing list