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

["Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <[e-mail]>]

Ok.  The text is general enough to raise the issue. - Larry

On 5/21/15 11:42 AM, "Erik Nordmark" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On 5/21/15 11:25 AM, Larry Kreeger (kreeger) wrote:
>> The reason I was asking for examples was to understand whether it really
>> was a separate encapsulation layer (e.g. GRE) versus just running
>>directly
>> over IP or Ethernet without and encapsulation (e.g. IP-in-IP).  Since
>>you
>> named both, then further clarification in the text might be needed to
>> cover both cases (direct encapsulation and encapsulation using an
>> additional header).
>Those aspects matter if/when there is a push to get either more
>commonality and less different encapsulations, or extensibility
>mechanisms for such encapsulations.
>
>But I chose the wording to stay away from such possibilities to avoid
>writing an essay on differences and similarities for different styles of
>encapsulations.
>
>If we later end with some "Architectural considerations re: the
>profileration of encapsulations" then such a document would go into more
>detail.
>
>    Erik
>
>>
>>   - Larry
>>
>> On 5/21/15 11:18 AM, "Erik Nordmark" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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" <[e-mail]> 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
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dt-encap-considerations
>>
>