IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: routing area design team on dataplane encapsulation considerations

<l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> Wed, 10 December 2014 10:31 UTC

Return-Path: <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCA9A1A19F8 for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 02:31:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 77XhZFxmU0Ic for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 02:31:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.bemta14.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta14.messagelabs.com [193.109.254.119]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2523E1A064C for <routing-discussion@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 02:31:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [193.109.255.147] by server-15.bemta-14.messagelabs.com id 70/74-02699-5E028845; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:31:01 +0000
X-Env-Sender: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-16.tower-72.messagelabs.com!1418207460!14858375!1
X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.39]
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 6.12.5; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 10843 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2014 10:31:01 -0000
Received: from exht012p.surrey.ac.uk (HELO EXHT012P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.39) by server-16.tower-72.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 10 Dec 2014 10:31:01 -0000
Received: from EXHY012V.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.201.103) by EXHT012P.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.200.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:31:00 +0000
Received: from emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (131.227.201.241) by EXHY012v.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.201.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:31:00 +0000
Received: from DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.141.238.15) by DB4PR06MB460.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.141.238.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.31.17; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:30:59 +0000
Received: from DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.238.15]) by DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.238.15]) with mapi id 15.01.0031.000; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:30:59 +0000
From: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
To: akatlas@gmail.com, routing-discussion@ietf.org, stbryant@cisco.com
Subject: Re: routing area design team on dataplane encapsulation considerations
Thread-Topic: routing area design team on dataplane encapsulation considerations
Thread-Index: AQHQFAI+mxeM7C5mI06ufRYYSYZE2pyH3cwAgABL+5+AAHTBgIAAAF9W
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:30:59 +0000
Message-ID: <DB4PR06MB4578A186E17D4EFC1C4180DAD620@DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAG4d1rd60hK8=WtYw-nid_Z7Z8+TvdzA52fNx3pFjND+eDWAfA@mail.gmail.com>, <54877D58.9050002@cisco.com> <DB4PR06MB457D1FCFF0FBBA25E7A4EC3AD620@DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>, <54881F05.3030907@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <54881F05.3030907@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-AU, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [124.168.9.252]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB4PR06MB460;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB4PR06MB460;
x-forefront-prvs: 0421BF7135
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(24454002)(479174003)(199003)(377454003)(54164003)(189002)(51704005)(93886004)(50986999)(105586002)(54206007)(107046002)(21056001)(107886001)(92566001)(86362001)(15395725005)(19580405001)(19580395003)(76176999)(54356999)(54606007)(74482002)(2656002)(87936001)(46102003)(122556002)(31966008)(101416001)(106116001)(15975445007)(102836002)(33656002)(76576001)(15198665003)(40100003)(74316001)(62966003)(97736003)(120916001)(64706001)(20776003)(77156002)(4396001)(1720100001)(106356001)(77096005)(68736005)(2501002)(99396003)(66066001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DB4PR06MB460; H:DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: DB4PR06MB460.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com
X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: EXHY012v.surrey.ac.uk
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/0mSEknIBzHz3innPZOKKni9K5bc
X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list <routing-discussion.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/routing-discussion>, <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/routing-discussion/>
List-Post: <mailto:routing-discussion@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion>, <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:31:07 -0000

well, it's an IPv4 network.

because customers don't require or demand IPv6.

(see Jonathan Stone's papers for some large-scale IPv4 measurements. yes, you can quibble about whether software and hardware has improved in reliability thanks to all of the ongoing engineering and lessons learned - and who is maintaining cef these days? - but the papers are a handy existence proof of the problem.)
________________________________________
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 10 December 2014 9:23:01 PM
To: Wood L  Dr (Electronic Eng); akatlas@gmail.com; routing-discussion@ietf.org
Subject: Re: routing area design team on dataplane encapsulation considerations

Lloyd

You run a network these days, what error rates are you actually measuring?

Stewart

On 10/12/2014 10:01, l.wood@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
> Of course the tunnellers are happy with a zero checksum. The pollution caused by missent corrupted ipv6 packets evading checks elsewhere does not affect them.
>
> Congestion is not a problem for tunnellers either. Like zero checksums, any congestion problem caused by a tunnel is just not the tunnel's problem. Why should the tunneller have to consider congestion? Or zero checksums? Or anything that impedes tunnel performance?
>
> The tragedy of the commons, in action.
>
> Lloyd Wood
> http://about.me/lloydwood
> ________________________________________
> From: routing-discussion <routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 10 December 2014 9:53:12 AM
> To: Alia Atlas; routing-discussion@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: routing area design team on dataplane encapsulation considerations
>
> Alia
>
> On 09/12/2014 22:46, Alia Atlas wrote:
>> * IPv6 header protection (non-zero UDP checksum over IPv6 issue)
> I am not sure if it is the non-zero UDP checksum over IPv6 issue, or
> the zeroUDP checksum over IPv6 issue.
>
> Most people doing tunneling seem quite happy with zero but get pushback
> from the transport area.
>
> Perhaps the topic is really
>
> * IPv6 header protection (UDP checksum issue)
>
> - Stewart
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> routing-discussion mailing list
> routing-discussion@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
>


--
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email