IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Rtg-dt-encap-considerations] Encapsulation considerations

Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org> Wed, 25 March 2015 04:41 UTC

Return-Path: <nordmark@acm.org>
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 74EC31ACD97; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 21:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.935
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.935 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
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 Tt7B_bgnJYCA; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 21:41:27 -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 767531ACD8A; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 21:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [31.133.137.136] (dhcp-8988.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.137.136]) (authenticated bits=0) by d.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id t2P4fM9G013233 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 24 Mar 2015 21:41:23 -0700
Message-ID: <55123C72.202@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:41:22 -0500
From: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVbfkJ4JkImp9+qTqQike3y/TIiXYHwbHAmh2t/OIXymgvyog/pE09doKd1jfuqH1VqQe6mziE1hatA6MyvaIPy7HRBX9BUp1h0=
X-Sonic-ID: C;+C/6L6nS5BGEAqSqki+G8Q== M;OJKTMKnS5BGEAqSqki+G8Q==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dt-encap-considerations/pgHsiMjK0tkBxrH-z94AuFNUmPk>
Cc: "rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org" <Rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org>
Subject: [Rtg-dt-encap-considerations] Encapsulation considerations
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: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 04:41:28 -0000

I don't know to what extent folks are paying attention to RTGWG but I 
presented the report from the encapsulation design team this afternoon.
The draft is
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rtg-dt-encap/
and the slides are at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-rtgwg-8.pdf

There is probably things in there to consider for SFC, and things that 
can be reused to make it easier to move SFC forward.

Sorry for not sending things out to the WG earlier.
    Erik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email