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
- UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Lars Eggert
- RE: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP L.Wood
- Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Pasi Sarolahti
- Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Jukka Manner
- Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP L.Wood
- Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Brian F. G. Bidulock
- Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP L.Wood
- Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Lars Eggert
- Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Michael Welzl
- Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Fred Baker
- RE: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP L.Wood
- RE: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP L.Wood
- Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Fred Baker
- Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Michael Welzl
- RE: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP L.Wood
- RE: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Alex Conta
- RE: UDP encaps for SCTP and DCCP -- why not just … Phelan, Tom
- Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Michael Tüxen
- Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Michael Tüxen
- Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Michael Tüxen
- RE: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP L.Wood
- RE: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP L.Wood
- RE: UDP encaps for SCTP and DCCP -- why not just … L.Wood
- RE: UDP encaps for SCTP and DCCP -- why not just … Phelan, Tom
- RE: UDP encaps for SCTP and DCCP -- why not just … Phelan, Tom
- RE: UDP encaps for SCTP and DCCP -- why not just … L.Wood
- Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Lars Eggert
- RE: [dccp] UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Phelan, Tom
- RE: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Phelan, Tom
- Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Brian F. G. Bidulock
- Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Michael Tüxen
- Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP L.Wood
- RE: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Bob Briscoe
- Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Bob Briscoe
- Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Jukka Manner
- Re: [dccp] UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Lars Eggert
- Re: [dccp] UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP James M. Polk
- Re: [dccp] UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Colin Perkins
- Re: [dccp] UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Randy Stewart
- Re: [dccp] UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Randy Stewart
- Re: [dccp] UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Randy Stewart
- Re: [dccp] UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP L.Wood
- Re: [dccp] UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Michael Tüxen
- Re: [dccp] UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Lars Eggert
- Re: [dccp] UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Lars Eggert
- RE: UDP encaps for SCTP and DCCP -- why not just … Alex Conta
- RE: UDP encaps for SCTP and DCCP -- why not just … Alex Conta
- Re: [dccp] UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Andrew Lentvorski
- Re: [dccp] UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Andrew Lentvorski
- Re: [dccp] UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP Eddie Kohler