Hi Tom, > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 8:59 AM > To: Templin, Fred L <[email protected]> > Cc: Ted Lemon <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03 > > 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.
I don't see the drawback; I think those two IP protocol versions could carry us forward into the forseeable future. Are you thinking there could be another IP version on the near term horizon? Thanks - Fred > > 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
