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

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Fri, 25 March 2016 08:04 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 8A39112D1B5 for <stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 01:04:56 -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 4LWn2rS-vgeP for <stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 01:04:54 -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 0278612D193 for <stackevo-discuss@iab.org>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 01:04:53 -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 1ajMji-0007vH-QS; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:04:50 +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 1ajMji-0003UC-H0; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:04:50 +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: <56F4257C.2070106@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:04:48 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3D1F621B-AE85-4308-8527-35FBB647482E@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> <9DD6DF36-0B24-4367-A1F2-34495BBBB494@ifi.uio.no> <56F4257C.2070106@isi.edu>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 6 msgs/h 3 sum rcpts/h 9 sum msgs/h 5 total rcpts 39658 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: 66EF4C8E3EF995CB5D482A6DCBB9002D6CFBD5FD
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 109.189.134.3 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 3 total 572 max/h 14 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stackevo-discuss/ZOAcVJE-82e9jkba163ZdseWf4Q>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, stackevo-discuss@iab.org
Subject: Re: [Stackevo-discuss] 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: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 08:04:57 -0000

> On 24. mar. 2016, at 18.35, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/23/2016 11:43 PM, Michael Welzl wrote:
>>>> 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.
> 
> I was focused on the potential for either source or dest IP to be
> different. If neither is the case, we're in agreement.

Just to ack: yes, we are in agreement.

Cheers,
Michael