Hi Joe and Tom, > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 11:26 AM > To: Tom Herbert <[email protected]> > Cc: Templin, Fred L <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03 > > > > On 5/26/2016 11:22 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On 5/26/2016 10:52 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: > >>> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> Here's the problem: > >>>> > >>>> The first 4 bits are either part of the GUE header or IPv4 or IPv6. > >>>> > >>>> In the diagrams in draft-ietf-nvo3-gue and RFC791 they're indicated in > >>>> the > >>>> following bit order: 0,1,2,3 > >>>> > >>>> In GUE, these are 0,0,x,x > >>>> > >>>> In IPv4, these are 0,0,1,0 > >>>> > >>>> In IPv6, these are 0,1,1,0 > >>>> > >>> IPv4 is 0,1,0,0. > >> Not LSB to MSB, which is how both GUE and RFC791 define the header: > >> > > >From RFC791: > > > > "Whenever an octet represents a numeric quantity the left most bit in > > the diagram is the high order or most significant bit. That is, the > > bit > > labeled 0 is the most significant bit." > Arrgh. > > Yup. OK, so the reason this would work is only because we no longer use > IP versions 0..3. > > Got it.
I for one like it, and I am using it in my AERO implementation. As Joe points out however it does not account for fragmentation, identification etc. But, as long as you use it in a carefully controlled environment it should be OK. Can we have this added back to the GUE spec? Thanks - Fred > > Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
