Re: [Softwires] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-22

" 杨术 " <yangshu@oudmon.com> Sun, 02 June 2019 15:31 UTC

Return-Path: <yangshu@oudmon.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F85B12000F for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 08:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 4rkoBM2f3p4N for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 08:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpbgsg3.qq.com (smtpbgsg3.qq.com [54.179.177.220]) (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 7DB1012012D for <softwires@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 08:31:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-QQ-GoodBg: 2
X-QQ-SSF: 00400000000000F0
X-QQ-FEAT: w8rTskylU5Z1ColD7/99fQavq6/AsfilCSKjxEMwEXdAbHpMETDlZNbhAVzYB UTUE5bbqAmdVlgJCFoK5cprpEYTsplsr9eGBIuB0V989l5dIHnsc3oCo3PkVOtV5IhBe+Zi v5aBSxqAR9Brvl5mK0matmVvP/4QOyx87/Iv5othw2zUHOq0/Tw5zNHFmWwk+EoNUKliVsd 314JoPaXZCNNUgYme1VUKggSOBFUSOg97km5wfePF963QEtHCuavtSjljh4TzGwilrGR/iu twTh4aqJk8kxJhgmOdKG21i5pmSf3VJgNa7sHr7jdK3DujBxCxVMaQRS7ZX9qTkHjzPZnwW ejgeH5y
X-QQ-BUSINESS-ORIGIN: 2
X-Originating-IP: 61.51.59.75
X-QQ-STYLE:
X-QQ-mid: bizmailvip4t1559489482t652123
From: "=?utf-8?B?5p2o5pyv?=" <yangshu@oudmon.com>
To: "=?utf-8?B?Sm9zZXBoIFRvdWNo?=" <touch@strayalpha.com>, "=?utf-8?B?dHN2LWFydA==?=" <tsv-art@ietf.org>
Cc: "=?utf-8?B?c29mdHdpcmVz?=" <softwires@ietf.org>, "=?utf-8?B?aWV0Zg==?=" <ietf@ietf.org>, "=?utf-8?B?ZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1zb2Z0d2lyZS1tZXNoLW11bHRpY2FzdC5hbGw=?=" <draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast.all@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_5CF3EBCA_0A8A8CA8_467DDE2E"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 23:31:22 +0800
X-Priority: 3
Message-ID: <tencent_5AE1A70B6BACA93856FB1337@qq.com>
X-QQ-MIME: TCMime 1.0 by Tencent
X-Mailer: QQMail 2.x
X-QQ-Mailer: QQMail 2.x
X-QQ-SENDSIZE: 520
Received: from qq.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.qq.com (ESMTP) with SMTP id ; Sun, 02 Jun 2019 23:31:24 +0800 (CST)
Feedback-ID: bizmailvip:oudmon.com:qybgforeign:qybgforeign1
X-QQ-Bgrelay: 1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/2NioM6x_Qp9Qtb-tLYYX_XLDqn0>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-22
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/softwires/>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2019 15:31:48 -0000

Dear Joseph, 


Thank you for your comments.


About fragmentation, we modified this part as following:


The encapsulation performed by an upstream AFBR will increase the    size of packets.  As a result, the outgoing I-IP link MTU may not    accommodate the larger packet size.  It is not always possible for    core operators to increase the MTU of every link, thus fragmentation    after encapsulation and reassembling of encapsulated packets MUST be    supported by AFBRs [RFC5565].  PMTUD [RFC8201] SHOULD be enabled and    that ICMPv6 packets must not be filtered in the I-IP network.  Using    tunnel will reduce the effective MTU of the datagram.  When the    original packet size exceeds the effective MTU, fragmentation MUST    happen after encapsulation on the upstream AFBR, and reassembly MUST    happen before decapsulation on the downstream AFBR.  Fragmentation    and tunnel configuration considerations are provided in [RFC5565] and    [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels].  The detailed procedure can be referred    in Section 7.2 of [RFC2473].
about TTL, we also add a pointer to draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels.


Best Regards,


Shu Yang









------------------



杨术



欧德蒙科技有限公司






This message may contain privileged and confidential information only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender immediately. 



 
 
 
------------------ Original ------------------
From:  "Joseph Touch"<touch@strayalpha.com>pha.com>;
Date:  Wed, Sep 5, 2018 12:37 PM
To:  "tsv-art"<tsv-art@ietf.org>art@ietf.org>; 
Cc:  "softwires"<softwires@ietf.org>res@ietf.org>; "ietf"<ietf@ietf.org>etf@ietf.org>; "draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast.all"<draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast.all@ietf.org>all@ietf.org>; 
Subject:  Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-22

 

Reviewer: Joseph Touch
Review result: Ready with Issues

Hi, all,

I’ve prepared this review the request of Magnus Westerlund, who is preparing a
TSVART review. My comments focus on the issue of fragmentation and tunneling.

These are relatively minor issues that are simple to address, but not quite
what I would consider nits.

Joe

------

-- Regarding fragmentation:

The doc does the right thing by not trying to describe a solution
itself. However, it cites RFC 5565, which cites RFC4459. That's where
the only trouble lies - 4459 is incorrect, as noted in
draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels. I might suggest they continue to cite RFC
5565 but indicate that the requirements for tunneling are under current
revision and cite draft-ietf-intarea-tunnel (at least informationally) too.

It might also be important to discuss the challenge of tunnel
configuration in a multicast environment, which is addressed as well in
draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels.

- other issues:

7.2 correctly notes that the TTL should be set per tunneling policy, but
gives no advice as to how that is done (again, a pointer to
draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels would be useful)

------