Re: [Softwires] WG LC softwire-lb

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Fri, 24 April 2009 08:57 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Original-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CB133A6E95 for <softwires@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AYIIE7yHRtqF for <softwires@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail37.opentransfer.com (mail37.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F146A3A6EB5 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 3738 invoked by uid 399); 24 Apr 2009 08:31:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?172.30.29.64?) (80.187.215.123) by mail37.opentransfer.com with SMTP; 24 Apr 2009 08:31:48 -0000
Message-ID: <49F178ED.2080905@raszuk.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:31:41 -0700
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Ward <dward@cisco.com>
References: <5EE53708-2D8B-4DFB-8365-27041AACB0BE@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5EE53708-2D8B-4DFB-8365-27041AACB0BE@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:39:15 -0700
Cc: Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com>, l3vpn@ietf.org, Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>, Alain Durand <Alain_Durand@cable.comcast.com>, softwires@ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] WG LC softwire-lb
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:57:16 -0000

Hi David,

Perhaps I may have missed the discussion on this in the other WGs but I 
have two comments/questions ...

* Why the decision on enhancing the load balancing capability of IP 
encapsulated packet has to be signaled as opposed to be a local matter 
of the ingress router performing encapsulation ?

* Reg use of GRE key for the purpose of load balancing I must say that 
GRE key has already been proposed in number of solutions today. Therefor 
overloading more on it may be impractical. Did authors analyzed use of 
Sequence Numbers in GRE header instead for the purpose of increasing 
effectiveness of load-balancing by the transit nodes ?

Cheers,
R.


> All -
> Following the last IETF meeting all comments have been addressed in:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-lb-02
> 
> The authors have requested a WG LC and I have added L3VPN and PWE3 that 
> may be interested and have comments on the technology. Please send back 
> all comments by May 7, 2009.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> DWard, Alain