On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Templin, Fred L <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tom, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 9:14 AM >> To: Ted Lemon <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03 >> >> 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. > > I thought at one time we had come up with an idea for omitting the GUE > header when the payload is a plain IPv4/IPv6 packet. There was a check > of the first four bits following the UDP header to see if they encoded the > value '4' or '6'. Did that not make it into the draft? > Yes, we had come up with the idea and I have implemented the prototype. It is not in the draft. I believe the only discernible benefit we could identify was that it saves 4 bytes of overhead. The major drawback is that this only works specifically for IPv4 and IPv6.
Tom > Thanks - Fred > [email protected] > >> 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 _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
