Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP

Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk> Wed, 19 May 2010 09:34 UTC

Return-Path: <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2BA13A6C03 for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 May 2010 02:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.223
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.223 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.260, BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 DTArA+nhkPOt for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 May 2010 02:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp3.smtp.bt.com (smtp3.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.138]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A22413A6C9D for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 May 2010 02:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from i2kc06-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.70]) by smtp3.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 19 May 2010 10:28:52 +0100
Received: from cbibipnt05.iuser.iroot.adidom.com ([147.149.196.177]) by i2kc06-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 19 May 2010 10:28:52 +0100
Received: From bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk ([132.146.168.158]) by cbibipnt05.iuser.iroot.adidom.com (WebShield SMTP v4.5 MR1a P0803.399); id 1274261331686; Wed, 19 May 2010 10:28:51 +0100
Received: from MUT.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.215.130.87]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id o4J9Sofg025249; Wed, 19 May 2010 10:28:50 +0100
Message-Id: <201005190928.o4J9Sofg025249@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 10:28:55 +0100
To: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
From: Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk>
Subject: Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP
In-Reply-To: <F969C7A1-3ED7-4C93-B30A-27E513985932@nokia.com>
References: <9693C831-4EE4-4FC5-84A2-083DA16C1CD6@nokia.com> <F969C7A1-3ED7-4C93-B30A-27E513985932@nokia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 May 2010 09:28:52.0665 (UTC) FILETIME=[B216DA90:01CAF735]
Cc: DCCP working group <dccp@ietf.org>, TSV Area <tsv-area@ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 09:34:54 -0000

Lars,

At 08:37 18/05/2010, Lars Eggert wrote:
>Hi,
>
>the discussion has touched on lots of things related to UDP encaps, 
>but I haven't seen anything I'd call consensus on the question 
>below. I'd therefore like to ask folks to specifically state which 
>option they support:
>
>(1) do one SCTP-specific and one DCCP-specific UDP encaps
>(2) do one generic UDP encaps that can be used with both
>(3) do neither (don't do any sort of UDP encaps for SCTP and DCCP)

I vote for (2), which requires more work (and may turn out not to be 
possible), but GUT is a good start. It can also be used to encap new 
TCP options if/when they get dropped by middleboxes (e.g. MPTCP, 
window scaling, ECN).

Second pref is (3), given existing tunnelling can be used, but it's 
heavyweight for some apps.


Bob


>Thanks,
>Lars
>
>On 2010-4-22, at 12:57, Eggert Lars (Nokia-NRC/Espoo) wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > as most of you probably know, there are two different proposals 
> for how to encapsulate SCTP and DCCP inside UDP.
> >
> > One approach proposes two protocol-specific encapsulation schemes 
> (described in draft-tuexen-sctp-udp-encaps and draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap).
> >
> > The second approach proposes a generic encapsulation scheme that 
> can be applied to both SCTP and DCCP (draft-manner-tsvwg-gut).
> >
> > As a community, we do need to come to consensus on which of these 
> two approaches we want to follow when it comes to UDP encapsulation 
> of SCTP and DCCP. I believe it would be very confusing if we were 
> to standardize both approaches.
> >
> > I'd hence like to ask folks to read the three documents and post 
> their views to the tsvwg@ietf.org list. I'm personally especially 
> interested in hearing from folks who aren't on the author lists of 
> the documents, but obviously, the authors expert opinions do matter.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lars
> >
> > PS: I'm pushing on this topic, because UDP encapsulation is the 
> last remaining work item in the DCCP working group before it can close...
>
>

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design