Re: [trill] Fwd: Mail regarding draft-ietf-trill-over-ip

Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> Mon, 04 May 2015 03:19 UTC

Return-Path: <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04DD11A0032; Sun, 3 May 2015 20:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 Yf5ABCu-N4aL; Sun, 3 May 2015 20:19:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7611A1A002F; Sun, 3 May 2015 20:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BSC14071; Mon, 04 May 2015 03:19:26 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.35) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 4 May 2015 04:19:24 +0100
Received: from NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.209]) by nkgeml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 4 May 2015 11:19:19 +0800
From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [trill] Fwd: Mail regarding draft-ietf-trill-over-ip
Thread-Index: AQHQhDAYoLZIFwke90qEGncpXxc1v51nAPgAgAQl8XA=
Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 03:19:19 +0000
Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0832A468@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E76ABADC85@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CAF4+nEHSGYa+1DHzwee+RNgkXfZra_Pa9706vqpTGJV71SmDaw@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEFcUL2ieQKCm98_0XxfrrAR0M11irVFfOfqa=92OM1V=A@mail.gmail.com> <5543D870.6080108@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <5543D870.6080108@isi.edu>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.99.55]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/UzOcs4ZPf6R3OzwtsVxMp5JEhAo>
Cc: "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [trill] Fwd: Mail regarding draft-ietf-trill-over-ip
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <trill.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/>
List-Post: <mailto:trill@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 03:19:31 -0000

Hi Joe,

I'm wondering whether your proposal as below is also applicable to other UDP-based encapsulation approaches which have not yet considered doing fragmentation on the tunnel layer, such as GENEVE, VXLAN-GPE, GRE-in-UDP and NSH-UDP.

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: trill [mailto:trill-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Touch
> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 3:48 AM
> To: Donald Eastlake; trill@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [trill] Fwd: Mail regarding draft-ietf-trill-over-ip
> 
> Hi, all,
> 
> Have you considered GUE as an encapsulation layer?
> 
> Encapsulating anything in UDP directly has a number of hazards, including
> support for at-rate fragmentation, IPv4 ID generation, etc., that GUE is intended
> to address.
> 
> Joe
> 
> On 5/1/2015 9:58 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> > Forwarded with permission.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Donald
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: *Donald Eastlake* <d3e3e3@gmail.com <mailto:d3e3e3@gmail.com>>
> > Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:26 AM
> > Subject: Re: Mail regarding draft-ietf-trill-over-ip
> > To: Mingui Zhang <zhangmingui@huawei.com
> > <mailto:zhangmingui@huawei.com>>
> >
> > Hi Mingui,
> >
> > Thanks for these comments! See below.
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Mingui Zhang <zhangmingui@huawei.com
> > <mailto:zhangmingui@huawei.com>> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I read the document. It's comprehensive and well written. Below, several
> comments for your information.
> >>
> >> 1.      It's not clear how the ports IPs are associated with the ports? Maybe,
> we can add some words to explain that they can be got from DHCP or manual
> configuration? Or we just say it is out the scope of this document.
> >
> > Yes, they need to be configured. Could be DHCP or manual or maybe some
> > sort of orchestration thing... Seems reasonable to mention this in the
> > draft.
> >
> >> 2.      Is it helpful to add a reference topology? Terminologies, such as IP
> tunnel, port IPs, RBridges can be put onto this figure. A walk-through example
> based on this reference topology can be used to explain how the IP tunnel is set
> up, how does a TRILL Data packet get encapsulated/decapsulated and
> transported in the IP tunnel. I think this would be educational.
> >
> > A few more network diagrams would probably be helpful. If you look at
> > the minutes from the Dallas TRILL WG meeting, the suggestion of having
> > a couple of example packets was supported...
> >
> >> 3.      Both IP and TRILL have specified BFD. Since TRILL is dependent on IP
> in TRILL-over-IP, it's unnecessary to have both TRILL and IP interact with BFD. It's
> best to assert TRILL-over-IP will have the IP interact with BFD. Please refer to
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5882#section-4.4
> >
> > Well, if you are only going to use one then I agree with the section
> > you reference in RFC 5882 and you should do BFD over IP. But that
> > doesn't check the TRILL stack, just the IP and lower stacks. So we
> > could recommend just using IP BFD but I don't think we should try to
> > prohibit people from also using BFD over TRILL on the link.
> >
> >> 4.      Is the IP link in this document "a single link (physical, or a secure
> tunnel such as IPsec)"? Then, we can require the TTL "MUST be set to the
> maximum on transmit, and checked to be equal to the maximum value on
> reception (and the packet dropped if this is not the case)." See also RFC 5880
> Section 9.
> >
> > I don't think so. There is nothing wrong with the communication
> > between two TRILL IP ports being multiple IP hops. Even if IPsec is in
> > use, it could be integrated with the TRILL over IP port at one end but
> > at the other end, the IPsec implementation could be integrated with a
> > firewall a couple of hops from the RBridge...
> >
> >> 5.      There are six tiny typos marked in the attached doc.
> >
> > OK. We'll fix this up in the next version.
> >
> > Maybe you should post these comments, or some of them, to the TRILL WG
> > mailing list. It would be good if there was more discussion of drafts
> > there. Or if it OK with you, I could just forward your comments and my
> > responses to the list...
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Donald
> > =============================
> >  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 <tel:%2B1-508-333-2270> (cell)
> >  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA  d3e3e3@gmail.com
> > <mailto:d3e3e3@gmail.com>
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >> Mingui
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > trill mailing list
> > trill@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> trill mailing list
> trill@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill