IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: routing area design team on dataplane encapsulation considerations

Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Wed, 10 December 2014 12:08 UTC

Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.com>
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 5D5561A870D for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 04:08:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 T9QhDfcwvKm6 for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 04:08:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AB581A8713 for <routing-discussion@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 04:07:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3193; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1418213278; x=1419422878; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=q6L2mu4slnC+GIy76cCFtVwV1dBVSDtLF/lt02XprMk=; b=mkKy1Bnbl/OdoWMqX8I7/gSBNmvDl9VaNpIcfRWKIsBbN0aYrIdnNC4j kTlxmpuoSRKz1vtyZje4XkF+ppreptUg8sa/7el9SeMFfTGxkZBhiVaBZ 15KnwPt/T8MXjsG244UgO4OORV/CNtm0Yq4Gn1IF4wMpwARtBs3o79c+v I=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,552,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="264137191"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Dec 2014 12:07:56 +0000
Received: from [10.61.99.142] (dhcp-10-61-99-142.cisco.com [10.61.99.142]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sBAC7tBR009065; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 12:07:56 GMT
Message-ID: <5488379A.2000807@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 12:07:54 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk, akatlas@gmail.com, routing-discussion@ietf.org
Subject: Re: routing area design team on dataplane encapsulation considerations
References: <CAG4d1rd60hK8=WtYw-nid_Z7Z8+TvdzA52fNx3pFjND+eDWAfA@mail.gmail.com>, <54877D58.9050002@cisco.com> <DB4PR06MB457D1FCFF0FBBA25E7A4EC3AD620@DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>, <54881F05.3030907@cisco.com> <DB4PR06MB4578A186E17D4EFC1C4180DAD620@DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB4PR06MB4578A186E17D4EFC1C4180DAD620@DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/mXT-zViLBmA8xvJq20NkGhDxe_0
X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
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 12:08:07 -0000

Lloyd as a first approximation what do your IP header checksum error 
rates look like.

The old paper that you point to is not representative of modern routing 
technology
and I would like to see some new modern numbers relevant to router to 
router traffic
which is what we are talking about.

Stewart

On 10/12/2014 10:30, l.wood@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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