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

[<pierrick.seite at orange-ftgroup.com>]

Hi Behcet,

If relevant in MIP context: there is a proposal to use GRE key as a tunnel identifier to solve the tunnel loop issue (IETF73/ intarea open meeting/presentation of draft-ng-intarea-tunnel-loop-00).

Regards,
Pierrick
________________________________________
De : mext-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces at ietf.org] De la part de Behcet Sarikaya
Envoyé : vendredi 16 janvier 2009 18:27
À : Hesham Soliman; Vijay Devarapalli; Pasi.Eronen at nokia.com; mext at ietf.org
Cc : Jari Arkko
Objet : Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review



________________________________________
From: Hesham Soliman <hesham at elevatemobile.com>
To: Vijay Devarapalli <vijay at wichorus.com>; Pasi.Eronen at nokia.com; mext at ietf.org
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:00:13 PM
Subject: Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review


> Hi Pasi, Hesham,
> 
> The TLV header was specified in the DS-MIPv6 document after rather a
> long and acrimonious debate on the former MIP6 mailing list. There were
> atleast two consensus calls that were run at that time.

=> I don't realy want to get into that, we all know there was no concensus
and we had to teleconference to come up with the existing method

Anytime you have
> a UDP header with IPv4/IPv6/GRE header following it, you need the TLV
> header. 
 
At that time, there were folks arguing for using GRE
> encapsulation with MIPv6 also. 
[behcet] I couldn't understand why MN would need to support GRE. Can someone explain the use case?
 

Thanks,
 
Behcet
 

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext