draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-12.txt   draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-13.txt 
Network Working Group Lucy Yong(Ed.) Network Working Group Lucy Yong(Ed.)
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standard Track E. Crabbe Intended status: Standard Track E. Crabbe
Oracle Oracle
X. Xu X. Xu
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
T. Herbert T. Herbert
Facebook Facebook
Expires: December 2016 June 29, 2016 Expires: January 2017 July 4, 2016
GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation
draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-12 draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-13
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies a method of encapsulating network protocol This document specifies a method of encapsulating network protocol
packet within GRE and UDP headers. This GRE-in-UDP encapsulation packet within GRE and UDP headers. This GRE-in-UDP encapsulation
allows the UDP source port field to be used as an entropy field. allows the UDP source port field to be used as an entropy field.
This may be used for load balancing of GRE traffic in transit This may be used for load balancing of GRE traffic in transit
networks using existing ECMP mechanisms. This document also networks using existing ECMP mechanisms. This document also
specifies GRE-in-UDP tunnel requirements for two applicability specifies GRE-in-UDP tunnel requirements for two applicability
scenarios: (1) general Internet; (2) a traffic-managed controlled scenarios: (1) general Internet; (2) a traffic-managed controlled
skipping to change at page 1, line 43 skipping to change at page 1, line 43
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29,2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4,2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 17, line 42 skipping to change at page 17, line 42
Section 3.1.9 of [RFC5405bis] discusses the congestion Section 3.1.9 of [RFC5405bis] discusses the congestion
considerations for design and use of UDP tunnels; this is important considerations for design and use of UDP tunnels; this is important
because other flows could share the path with one or more UDP because other flows could share the path with one or more UDP
tunnels, necessitating congestion control [RFC2914] to avoid tunnels, necessitating congestion control [RFC2914] to avoid
distractive interference. distractive interference.
Congestion has potential impacts both on the rest of the network Congestion has potential impacts both on the rest of the network
containing a UDP tunnel, and on the traffic flows using the UDP containing a UDP tunnel, and on the traffic flows using the UDP
tunnels. These impacts depend upon what sort of traffic is carried tunnels. These impacts depend upon what sort of traffic is carried
over the tunnel, as well as the path of the tunnel. A default GRE- over the tunnel, as well as the path of the tunnel.
in-UDP tunnel MAY be used to carry IP traffic that is known to be
congestion controlled on the Internet. IP unicast traffic is A default GRE-in-UDP tunnel MAY be used to carry IP traffic that is
generally assumed to be congestion-controlled. A default GRE-in-UDP known to be congestion controlled on the Internet. IP unicast
tunnel MUST NOT be used to carry traffic that is not known to be traffic is generally assumed to be congestion-controlled. A default
congestion-controlled. GRE-in-UDP tunnel MUST NOT be used to carry traffic that is not
known to be congestion-controlled.
A TMCE GRE-in-UDP tunnel can be used to carry traffic that is known A TMCE GRE-in-UDP tunnel can be used to carry traffic that is known
not to be congestion controlled. For example, GRE-in-UDP may be used not to be congestion controlled. For example, GRE-in-UDP may be used
to carry MPLS that carries pseudowire or VPN traffic where specific to carry MPLS that carries pseudowire or VPN traffic where specific
bandwidth guarantees are provided to each pseudowire or to each VPN. bandwidth guarantees are provided to each pseudowire or to each VPN.
In such cases, network operators may avoid congestion by careful In such cases, network operators may avoid congestion by careful
provisioning of their networks, by rate limiting of user data provisioning of their networks, by rate limiting of user data
traffic, and traffic engineering according to path capacity. traffic, and traffic engineering according to path capacity.
When a TMCE GRE-in-UDP tunnel carries traffic that is not known to When a TMCE GRE-in-UDP tunnel carries traffic that is not known to
skipping to change at page 19, line 25 skipping to change at page 19, line 26
Transport Protocol(s): UDP Transport Protocol(s): UDP
Assignee: IESG <iesg@ietf.org> Assignee: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org> Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Description: GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation Description: GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation
Reference: [This.I-D] Reference: [This.I-D]
Port Number: TBD1 Port Number: TBD1
Service Code: N/A Service Code: N/A
Known Unauthorized Uses: N/A Known Unauthorized Uses: N/A
Assignment Notes: N/A Assignment Notes: N/A
Editor Note: replace "TBD1" with IANA assigned number in this Editor Note: replace "TBD1" in section 3 and 9 with IANA assigned
document. number.
One UDP destination port number for the indication of GRE with DTLS, One UDP destination port number for the indication of GRE with DTLS,
Service Name: GRE-UDP-DTLS Service Name: GRE-UDP-DTLS
Transport Protocol(s): UDP Transport Protocol(s): UDP
Assignee: IESG <iesg@ietf.org> Assignee: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org> Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Description: GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation with DTLS Description: GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation with DTLS
Reference: [This.I-D] Reference: [This.I-D]
Port Number: TBD2 Port Number: TBD2
Service Code: N/A Service Code: N/A
Known Unauthorized Uses: N/A Known Unauthorized Uses: N/A
Assignment Notes: N/A Assignment Notes: N/A
Editor Note: replace "TBD2" with IANA assigned number in this Editor Note: replace "TBD2" in section 3, 5, and 9 with IANA
document. assigned number.
11. Security Considerations 11. Security Considerations
GRE-in-UDP encapsulation does not affect security for the payload GRE-in-UDP encapsulation does not affect security for the payload
protocol. When using GRE-in-UDP, Network Security in a network is protocol. When using GRE-in-UDP, Network Security in a network is
mostly equivalent to that of a network using GRE. mostly equivalent to that of a network using GRE.
To secure original traffic, DTLS SHOULD be used as specified in To secure original traffic, DTLS SHOULD be used as specified in
Section 5. Section 5.
skipping to change at page 22, line 40 skipping to change at page 22, line 40
[RFC768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [RFC768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980. August 1980.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- [RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts --
Communication Layers", RFC1122, October 1989. Communication Layers", RFC1122, October 1989.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.
[RFC2474] Nichols K., Blake S., Baker F., Black D., "Definition of
the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4
and IPv6 Headers", December 1998.
[RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P. [RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
March 2000. March 2000.
[RFC2890] Dommety, G., "Key and Sequence Number Extensions to GRE", [RFC2890] Dommety, G., "Key and Sequence Number Extensions to GRE",
RFC2890, September 2000. RFC2890, September 2000.
[RFC5405bis] Eggert, L., "Unicast UDP Usage Guideline for [RFC5405bis] Eggert, L., "Unicast UDP Usage Guideline for
Application Designers", draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis, work Application Designers", draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis, work
in progress. in progress.
skipping to change at page 23, line 37 skipping to change at page 23, line 40
[RFC792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, RFC [RFC792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, RFC
792, September 1981. 792, September 1981.
[RFC793] DARPA, "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC793, September [RFC793] DARPA, "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC793, September
1981. 1981.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC2474] Nichols K., Blake S., Baker F., Black D., "Definition of
the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4
and IPv6 Headers", December 1998.
[RFC2914] Floyd, S.,"Congestion Control Principles", RFC2914, [RFC2914] Floyd, S.,"Congestion Control Principles", RFC2914,
September 2000. September 2000.
[RFC2983] Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels", RFC2983, [RFC2983] Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels", RFC2983,
October 2000. October 2000.
[RFC4787] Audet, F., et al, "network Address Translation (NAT) [RFC4787] Audet, F., et al, "network Address Translation (NAT)
Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", RFC4787, January Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", RFC4787, January
2007. 2007.
[RFC6056] Larsen, M. and Gont, F., "Recommendations for Transport- [RFC6056] Larsen, M. and Gont, F., "Recommendations for Transport-
Protocol Port Randomization", RFC6056, January 2011. Protocol Port Randomization", RFC6056, January 2011.
[RFC6438] Carpenter, B., Amante, S., "Using the Ipv6 Flow Label for [RFC6438] Carpenter, B., Amante, S., "Using the Ipv6 Flow Label for
Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggreation in Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggreation in
Tunnels", RFC6438, November 2011. Tunnels", RFC6438, November 2011.
[RFC7637] Garg, P. and Wang, Y., "NVGRE: Network Virtualization
Using Generic Routing Encapsulation", RFC7637, September
2015.
[RFC7676] Pignataro, C., Bonica, R., Krishnan, S., "IPv6 Support for [RFC7676] Pignataro, C., Bonica, R., Krishnan, S., "IPv6 Support for
Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC7676, October Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC7676, October
2015. 2015.
[CB] Fairhurst, G., "Network Transport Circuit Breakers", [CB] Fairhurst, G., "Network Transport Circuit Breakers",
draft-ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker-13, work in progress. draft-ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker-15, work in progress.
15. Authors' Addresses 15. Authors' Addresses
Lucy Yong Lucy Yong
Huawei Technologies, USA Huawei Technologies, USA
Email: lucy.yong@huawei.com Email: lucy.yong@huawei.com
Edward Crabbe Edward Crabbe
Oracle Oracle
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
22 lines changed or deleted 19 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/