Hi Joe, Thanks for your comment. Note that it's WG adoption call rather than WGLC. If I understand it correctly, as long as it's worthwhile to provide fine-grained load-balancing of Softwire service traffic by leveraging the UDP tunnels, the WG should adopt it and then work on it, e.g., addressing those issues as you mentioned.
Best regards, Xiaohu From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe Touch Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 5:03 AM To: Fred Baker (fred); Wassim Haddad Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03 +1 I provided numerous comments on flaws in this doc over one year ago, which remain unaddressed: ---- We know of at least four things that tunnels need that IP-in-UDP ignores: - stronger checksums - fragmentation support - signalling support (e.g., to test whether a tunnel is up or to measure MTUs) - support for robust ID fields (related to fragmentation, e.g., to overcome the limits of IPv4 ID as per RFC 6864) ---- Additional issues: - fails to address the need for this approach vs GUE - fails to consider the recommendations in draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels - recommends PMTUD, rather than the much more robust PLPMTUD - fails to address interactions with IPv6 flow labels, both inside and outside the encapsulation Joe On 5/19/2016 10:52 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: I, for one, am opposed. I have two issues. One is summarized fairly succinctly in RFC 1326; there are technical issues in mutual encapsulation. The other is in the general form of "good grief". I don't think the draft adequately argues for yet-another-tunnel format.It tells how to do it and asks for a port number, but the arguments for doing it don't make sense to me. On May 19, 2016, at 10:03 AM, Wassim Haddad <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
