On 5/22/2016 7:44 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote: > > 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)? >
That set of issues applies to all IP-in-(xlist), where xlist includes IP again. The issue is what IP expects and what the tunnel exports. The other items I pointed out are specific to transport-in-UDP or this specific approach. Joe
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
