IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] MAP Open issues: Interface-id

Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net> Tue, 08 November 2011 10:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mark@townsley.net>
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 6BA4921F8C5A for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 02:35:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KMs7UGjBH1+8 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 02:35:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AA3621F8CA1 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 02:35:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by faas12 with SMTP id s12so437344faa.31 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 02:35:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.14.197 with SMTP id h5mr15564651faa.2.1320748541592; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 02:35:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1470:8000:566:226:bbff:fe1a:79b4? ([2001:1470:8000:566:226:bbff:fe1a:79b4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r7sm1679101faa.3.2011.11.08.02.35.38 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 08 Nov 2011 02:35:39 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-65-991438215"
From: Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net>
In-Reply-To: <BC2F2710-0097-4BA6-BE88-A4E3DCD8C537@laposte.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:35:38 +0100
Message-Id: <2ED2B76D-8E38-4AD5-83A7-822D26A876D0@townsley.net>
References: <703EB6B3-AB8C-4690-91C6-2666C5779874@cisco.com> <9D6EBB21-38BC-4E6C-99E6-C3448FA2D3C8@laposte.net> <CAM+vMESudUt5PT+qxQED_P2s7DB7T+3D_M4OWQ1yUvNN-xqhzA@mail.gmail.com> <C09B8E42-A13F-4B30-AC88-43F98C709EDD@cisco.com> <BC2F2710-0097-4BA6-BE88-A4E3DCD8C537@laposte.net>
To: Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>, Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP Open issues: Interface-id
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 10:35:43 -0000

On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Rémi Després wrote:
> 
> - Talking with Mark townsley, I got the understanding that this wasn't a real problem, at least with IOS.
> => Clarifying this point would IMHO be useful. 

Our tunnel code typically processes tunnel packets upon receipt at a single address  (/128 for v6 or /32 for v4). This is by far the easier and more "normal" way of doing things for the myriad of tunnels we support today. Implementing on receipt of anything other than an address (or hostroute, if your prefer since this is a router) is "possible" but would certainly be considered "special" and as such has a higher bar for implementation within the typical tunneling architecture (at least in the implementations I am aware of, YMMV).

Apologies if I was not clear on this point when we talked the other day. 

- Mark

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email