IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [RTG-DIR] [L2tpext] RTG-DIR review: draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel-05

"Giles Heron (giheron)" <giheron@cisco.com> Mon, 21 March 2016 17:57 UTC

Return-Path: <giheron@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6C7012D9D3; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 emisnOJA9VH1; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3199A12D9A6; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=116088; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1458583071; x=1459792671; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=dKX1BqHx2SVoXVQOtNbhZuCV26BrSW6TyItW7PhqbgM=; b=goYQrn/+c+6TtqCIo8BBRIbQd80dIIf2SAdzIv/QFHfwshi4Izdk0zU0 6vLrOZe2cEdZe8NXCmZiPM5VPT8bQQrFpjVrX5Ml8d8dHBsubx5f1VL9I V8WS7PO/ZLuoFaJrUBJtjNYvKu249UX8R0b/8R/I6VYo7gpB8tRgVvHp/ 0=;
X-Files: draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel-06.txt, ATT00001.htm : 27416, 53546
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CAAgDCNfBW/xbLJq1UCoJogR9yBrofDoFtAxcBC4UgSgIcgUkUAQEBAQEBAWQnhEEBAQEEAQEBFwEIRAQCAQYFDgICAQgRAwEBASEBBgMCAgIUEQsUCQgCBA4FDgsCiAwOr2ePLgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQ0IBIYagXOBUn+EDAYLATQKDAEJgkorgisFh1yHEIQFE4RTAYMdgWZtgnKCaoI3gWUWNYN/gkJleIMegRuPBQEPDwFDggMFFIFJagGIYjR+AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,372,1454976000"; d="htm'217?txt'217?scan'217,208,217";a="633609527"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Mar 2016 17:57:48 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-004.cisco.com (xch-rtp-004.cisco.com [64.101.220.144]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2LHvkco029558 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:57:47 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-019.cisco.com (64.101.220.159) by XCH-RTP-004.cisco.com (64.101.220.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:57:45 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-019.cisco.com ([64.101.220.159]) by XCH-RTP-019.cisco.com ([64.101.220.159]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:57:45 -0400
From: "Giles Heron (giheron)" <giheron@cisco.com>
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
Thread-Topic: [L2tpext] RTG-DIR review: draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel-05
Thread-Index: AQHRIiH8oIv5vLabXk6tkiwcXDwZCp7Bf+EA//+vpFeAAIhJAICjfVGA
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:57:45 +0000
Message-ID: <BF350ECA-D4D4-42CB-9AA5-BD1F1AA5EF4B@cisco.com>
References: <DB3PR03MB07802A1F72B4B0E8459E60779D590@DB3PR03MB0780.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <8FEFEEB2-0AC5-4C81-9727-AB9D49DB1913@cisco.com> <743196D6-DD0E-44C7-916B-E70824FE2A15@cisco.com> <D8223CD8-6049-49ED-A4C1-0B0F68F6E0B8@cisco.com> <904C8E01-D07F-4376-8AAD-38F3A42D3F01@cisco.com> <DB3PR03MB07803677839A7B4D48ADA2CA9D080@DB3PR03MB0780.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR03MB07803677839A7B4D48ADA2CA9D080@DB3PR03MB0780.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.60.143.148]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_005_BF350ECAD4D442CB9AA5BD1F1AA5EF4Bciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/cSVAOp-trsyRojuuwA0eK2Z00a8>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, Maciek Konstantynowicz <maciek@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel.all@tools.ietf.org>, "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>, Rainer Schatzmayr <rainer.schatzmayr@telekom.de>, "l2tpext-chairs@ietf.org" <l2tpext-chairs@ietf.org>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "Mark Townsley (townsley)" <townsley@cisco.com>, Wim Henderickx <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] [L2tpext] RTG-DIR review: draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel-05
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:57:57 -0000

Updated draft attached (sorry for the delay).  will post this in an hour or two unless anyone objects.

changes:

1) updated the wording to make it clear that the management plane is now in charge instead of the control plane (to address your comment re re-configuration to change cookies etc.)  I didn’t go as far as putting the word “orchestrator” in the draft as that may change by next week ;)   But I did use the phrase “matching configurations” - which should take care of concerns re e.g. MTU mismatches.

2) updated the draft to allow the L2-specific sublayer (for VCCV and frame sequencing)

3) added a paragraph to section 2 explaining the benefits of this approach (better ECMP and finer-grained route advertisements)

we can debate the other comments at a later point, but for now I wanted to get the draft published again - partly because there’s a dependency on this draft from the keyed IP tunnel YANG draft.  Speaking of which I’m not sure I want to put a ref here to that draft as that would all get a bit circular.

Giles

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email