Subject: [Rtg-dt-encap-considerations] Proliferation of encapsulations ...

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 10:12:50 -0700

Based on our discussion I propose adding this text to the scope section:

"While the origin and focus of this document is the routing area and in 
particular NVO3, SFC, and BIER, the considerations apply to other 
encapsulations that are being defined in the IETF and elsewhere. There 
seems to be an increase in the number of encapsulations being defined to 
run over UDP, where there might already exist an encapsulation over IP 
or Ethernet. Feedback on how these considerations apply in those 
contexts is welcome."
Comments?

Once that is in place and the document is out I'll send a note to the 
IESG to raise awareness.
In that note I'll include any examples we have. Is there something other 
than draft-xu-softwire-ip-in-udp and draft-ietf-trill-over-ip that we 
should use as examples?

Based on how that goes I'll raise the "profileration of encapsulations" 
with the IAB later.

Thanks,
    Erik

---

From: "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 17:23:29 +0000

Hi Erik,

Where you wrote "where there might already exist an encapsulation over IP
or Ethernet." do you think it would be useful to name a couple of
examples?  e.g. are you referring to GRE or something else?

 - Larry

On 5/21/15 10:12 AM, "Erik Nordmark" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>Rtg-dt-encap-considerations mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dt-encap-considerations

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 11:18:13 -0700

> examples?  e.g. are you referring to GRE or something else?
GRE, but also IP-in-IP.
I'm a but concerned having examples in the document since it might be 
interpreted as those proposals/proponents doing something wrong. Such as 
misinterpretation would make it harder to do something cooperative down 
the road.

    Erik

---

From: "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 18:25:53 +0000

The reason I was asking for examples was to understand whether it really
was a separate encapsulation layer (e.g. GRE) versus just running directly
over IP or Ethernet without and encapsulation (e.g. IP-in-IP).  Since you
named both, then further clarification in the text might be needed to
cover both cases (direct encapsulation and encapsulation using an
additional header).

 - Larry

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 11:42:12 -0700

> cover both cases (direct encapsulation and encapsulation using an
Those aspects matter if/when there is a push to get either more 
commonality and less different encapsulations, or extensibility 
mechanisms for such encapsulations.

But I chose the wording to stay away from such possibilities to avoid 
writing an essay on differences and similarities for different styles of 
encapsulations.

If we later end with some "Architectural considerations re: the 
profileration of encapsulations" then such a document would go into more 
detail.

    Erik

---

From: "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 18:48:03 +0000

Ok.  The text is general enough to raise the issue. - Larry