Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review

[<Pasi.Eronen at nokia.com>]

Hi Sri,

Adding GRE support to Mobile IPv6 needs a bit more than
a pointer to the GRE spec. Quoting from the IESG ballot:

- There's no text describing how GRE tunneling is actually done;
  for example, how the various parts of GRE header are set/used in
  the context of Mobile IPv6, how that interacts with RFC 4877, etc.

Also, the whole 'T' bit is problematic; from the IESG ballot:

- Apparently the 'T' bit does means only that MN supports the 
  general TLV format; it may not support any of the specific TLV 
  types, such as GRE (and new ones may be defined in the future). 
  How this is supposed to work?

Best regards,
Pasi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Sri Gundavelli [mailto:sgundave at cisco.com] 
> Sent: 15 January, 2009 18:57
> To: Eronen Pasi (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki)
> Cc: hesham at elevatemobile.com; mext at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review
> 
> Hi Pasi,
> 
> The specified GRE type value in the TLV header identifies the
> payload that follows. Wondering, what more needs to be specified.
> As the GRE format is specified in the respective specification,
> here the purpose of TLV is only payload classification, with a
> reference to that spec. Will a clarification help ?
> 
> The GRE key exchange draft in NETLMM is about defining an option
> for GRE key exchange. It does not focus on the transport. Its only
> deals with the key negotiation. The IPv4 support document in NETLMM
> also does not focus on GRE transport, it falls back to the DSMIP spec
> with normative reference.
> 
> So, if this is about a simple clarification, probably it can be fixed
> here ? Also, there were long discussion threads on this topic a year
> back.
> 
> 
> Regards
> Sri
> 
> 
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Pasi.Eronen at nokia.com wrote:
> 
> > Hesham,
> >
> > I would strongly suggest moving the whole TLV header text to the
> > separate GRE document.
> >
> > In particular, if you assign a number for GRE in this document,
> > you either need to describe how it works here, or have a normative
> > reference to the NETLMM spec.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Pasi
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ext Hesham Soliman [mailto:hesham at elevatemobile.com]
> >> Sent: 14 January, 2009 14:23
> >> To: mext at ietf.org
> >> Cc: Eronen Pasi (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki)
> >> Subject: GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review
> >>
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> Part of Pasi's review for DSMIPv6 was a comment on the lack of
> >> specification for GRE support in the spec. He said it was vastly
> >> under-specified, no details on the tunnelling, setting of different
> >> parts of the GRE header ...etc.
> >>
> >> I suggested that we don't explicitly mention GRE in the spec but we
> >> keep the TLV tunnelling format and reserve the numbers for 
> NETLMM to
> >> specify exactly how it will be used in a separate document. I think
> >> you would agree that this is largely driven by NETLMM needs and we
> >> shouldn't specify the details in MEXT. Pasi was ok with that.
> >>
> >> Please express your opinion on this soon because Pasi's 
> comments are
> >> the last comments for the draft and I want to handle them by Monday
> >> at the latest.
> >>
> >> Please avoid discussing the merits of GRE....etc, the question is:
> >>
> >> Are there any objections to removing explicit references to GRE
> >> while reserving the numbers in the TLV header for it to be 
> specified
> >> clearly in NETLMM?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Hesham
> > _______________________________________________
> > MEXT mailing list
> > MEXT at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> >
> 
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext