Re: [Rtg-dt-encap-considerations] Proliferation of encapsulations ...

Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net> Thu, 21 May 2015 18:19 UTC

Return-Path: <nordmark@sonic.net>
X-Original-To: rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE3B1A1B1D for <rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2015 11:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 fXcTnOOS8bTW for <rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2015 11:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E04DC1A1B22 for <Rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2015 11:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.22.227.238] ([162.210.130.3]) (authenticated bits=0) by d.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id t4LIIDIJ028248 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 21 May 2015 11:18:13 -0700
Message-ID: <555E2165.6070408@sonic.net>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 11:18:13 -0700
From: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <kreeger@cisco.com>, "rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org" <Rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org>
References: <555E1212.5020300@sonic.net> <D183617A.148E77%kreeger@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D183617A.148E77%kreeger@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVZPJhaGnbKpvazI2En2yqZzYIj+6oxheViZiD1RFHHHaiXfMJd0rmBm9agsK3ilqi/gOKLEwfT4Xoy6u8oZC4xE
X-Sonic-ID: C;hkFivuX/5BG6rjDDQUxNRQ== M;NA55vuX/5BG6rjDDQUxNRQ==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dt-encap-considerations/18gDzRJI1j4B-E7TQRUyRpb-J-M>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-dt-encap-considerations] Proliferation of encapsulations ...
X-BeenThere: rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Design Team on Encapsulation Considerations discussion list <rtg-dt-encap-considerations.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dt-encap-considerations>, <mailto:rtg-dt-encap-considerations-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dt-encap-considerations/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dt-encap-considerations-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dt-encap-considerations>, <mailto:rtg-dt-encap-considerations-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 18:19:33 -0000

On 5/21/15 10:23 AM, Larry Kreeger (kreeger) wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
> Where you wrote "where there might already exist an encapsulation over IP
> or Ethernet." do you think it would be useful to name a couple of
> examples?  e.g. are you referring to GRE or something else?
GRE, but also IP-in-IP.
I'm a but concerned having examples in the document since it might be 
interpreted as those proposals/proponents doing something wrong. Such as 
misinterpretation would make it harder to do something cooperative down 
the road.

    Erik

>
>   - Larry
>
> On 5/21/15 10:12 AM, "Erik Nordmark" <nordmark@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> Based on our discussion I propose adding this text to the scope section:
>>
>> "While the origin and focus of this document is the routing area and in
>> particular NVO3, SFC, and BIER, the considerations apply to other
>> encapsulations that are being defined in the IETF and elsewhere. There
>> seems to be an increase in the number of encapsulations being defined to
>> run over UDP, where there might already exist an encapsulation over IP
>> or Ethernet. Feedback on how these considerations apply in those
>> contexts is welcome."
>> Comments?
>>
>>
>> Once that is in place and the document is out I'll send a note to the
>> IESG to raise awareness.
>> In that note I'll include any examples we have. Is there something other
>> than draft-xu-softwire-ip-in-udp and draft-ietf-trill-over-ip that we
>> should use as examples?
>>
>> Based on how that goes I'll raise the "profileration of encapsulations"
>> with the IAB later.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>     Erik
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rtg-dt-encap-considerations mailing list
>> Rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dt-encap-considerations
>