Re: [Stackevo-discuss] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-welzl-irtf-iccrg-tcp-in-udp-00.txt

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Thu, 24 March 2016 06:43 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Original-To: stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2726612D976 for <stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 23:43:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham 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 LCTvF7ZbPQEB for <stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 23:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out4.uio.no (mail-out4.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::15]) (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 B7BCE12D95E for <stackevo-discuss@iab.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 23:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx1.uio.no ([129.240.10.29]) by mail-out4.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1aiyz7-0005jV-EX; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 07:43:09 +0100
Received: from 3.134.189.109.customer.cdi.no ([109.189.134.3] helo=[192.168.0.107]) by mail-mx1.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) user michawe (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1aiyz6-0006Xj-Ul; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 07:43:09 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S35acubkAwo4VTz5aV=96mBToMCkxQWNPucN4=xY1gnFXg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 07:43:07 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9DD6DF36-0B24-4367-A1F2-34495BBBB494@ifi.uio.no>
References: <A741874C-0E2C-4905-9FD3-D29B4B94A9C0@ifi.uio.no> <56F3212B.5020408@isi.edu> <20F3E6FF-DED4-46BD-BFD5-C76F8A6A8D40@ifi.uio.no> <CALx6S35n8bD6UwGT823S8dhmzncm3=B_VYrKbm0sgzv35-weRQ@mail.gmail.com> <56F32D4D.6040308@isi.edu> <CALx6S35acubkAwo4VTz5aV=96mBToMCkxQWNPucN4=xY1gnFXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 3 msgs/h 1 sum rcpts/h 6 sum msgs/h 3 total rcpts 39621 max rcpts/h 54 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, TVD_RCVD_IP=0.001, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 4A7389E09CD04ACA8429F61A3490F05D0A701091
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 109.189.134.3 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 1 total 544 max/h 14 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stackevo-discuss/P0LlbgfBb5qghRycq-XkXkIakbA>
Cc: stackevo-discuss@iab.org, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: [Stackevo-discuss] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-welzl-irtf-iccrg-tcp-in-udp-00.txt
X-BeenThere: stackevo-discuss@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Stack Evolution Discussion List <stackevo-discuss.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/stackevo-discuss>, <mailto:stackevo-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/stackevo-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:stackevo-discuss@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stackevo-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo-discuss>, <mailto:stackevo-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 06:43:15 -0000

> On 24. mar. 2016, at 01.51, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/23/2016 4:51 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> ...
>>> You should be able to accomplish the "same path" behavior by setting
>>> IPv6 flow label same value for different connections between same IP
>>> pair. This avoids all the unpleasantness that accompanies
>>> encapsulation.

Sounds good to me! Generally, our intention is to enable congestion control coupling between TCP flows, the UDP encapsulation is just one means we came up with.


>> You would need to do IP encapsulation AND use a flow label on that
>> encaps. Otherwise, you'd have different IP addresses with the same flow
>> label - which aren't expected to do anything useful.
>> 
> Oh, I guess I'm missing something. If the (destination) addresses are
> different how does encapsulating in UDP allow packets for these
> connections to take the same path?

+1 on being confused…  supporting different destination IP addresses is definitely out of scope of the draft as it’s currently written.

Cheers,
Michael