Hi Joe,,
As for the four things that you have pointed out (see below),
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)
I'm wondering whether those issues are specific to IP-in-UDP or not. In other
words, are those issue also applicable to other X-in-UDP approaches (where X
could be LISP, TRILL, VXLAN, VXLAN-GPE, GENEVE, GUE, NSH or MPLS)?
Best regards,
Xiaohu
From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 1:11 AM
To: Xuxiaohu; Fred Baker (fred); Wassim Haddad
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03
On 5/20/2016 3:13 AM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
Hi Joe,
Thanks for your comment. Note that it's WG adoption call rather than WGLC.
I gave reasons for not adopting it already, including key flaws and the fact
that this doc has not evolved based on feedback in the past (thus my confidence
in expecting future changes is low).
You need to do the work *first*. The WG is a place to polish, not for basic
development.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
