Do equivalent arguments apply also to 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap/>? Was this 
one reviewed by Int-area?

Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro.
Excuze typofraphicak errows

> On May 19, 2016, at 21:17, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> As a famous physicist once said when the discovery of the muon was announced, 
> "Who ordered that?"
> 
> In other words, I don't understand the use case that motivated this.
> In the Introduction, I find:
> 
>  "By encapsulating the Softwire
>   service traffic into an UDP tunnel and using the source port of the
>   UDP header as an entropy field, the existing load-balancing
>   capability as mentioned above can be leveraged to provide fine-
>   grained load-balancing of Softwire service traffic traffic over IP
>   networks."
> 
> What is meant by "the Softwire service traffic"? Does it just mean a
> bunch of traffic from a single customer? Why does it all need a
> common header for load balancing? The individual microflows in the
> traffic will all get load-balanced anyway.
> 
> I trust we are only talking about IPv6. If we're talking about IPv4, we
> certainly shouldn't be developing new methods. If we're talking about
> IPv6, we have the flow label for this (and it avoids tricky problems
> like finding the transport header in the presence of extension headers).
> That's already covered in RFC 6438 for any kind of tunnel, although
> IP in IP seems a lot simpler than IP in UDP in IP.
> 
> (If you really must do IPv4, IPv4 in IPv6 could still be load-balanced
> as per RFC 6438, I guess.)
> 
>   Brian
> 
> 
>> On 20/05/2016 05:03, Wassim Haddad wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> The authors of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03 (“Encapsulating IP in UDP”) 
>> have requested that the working group adopt this work as a WG work item.
>> So far, WG chairs have not seen widespread support and considering that lack 
>> of opposition does not qualify as support, we’re starting a working group 
>> adoption call until June 3rd. 
>> 
>> If you consider that the draft should be adopted as a WG work item, please 
>> indicate the reason.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Wassim & Juan Carlos
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Int-area mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Reply via email to