On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:31 AM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Xuxiaohu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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. > > > The WG shouldn't adopt it unless there is a clear motivation for doing so, > and no existing solutions to the same problem. That is the case you need > to make. What various people are saying is that they don't believe you > have made that case. That is how it appears to me as well. > There is an existing solution to the same problem. GUE allows encapsulation of IPv4 and IPv6, as well as other IP protocols (the GUE header indicates encapsulated protocol by IP number). The only material between GUE encapsulation of IP and IP in UDP is additional four byte header and associated processing of that. I don't think we've seen a use case where avoiding that overhead is critical motivation.
Tom > > _______________________________________________ > 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
