On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Templin, Fred L <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? > It's not about another IP version, we are using GUE to encapsulate various IP protocols-- GRE, MPLS, EtherIP, TCP and SCTP (in draft-herbert-transports-over-udp-00), etc.
Tom > 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
