On 6/16/2016 8:09 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote: > Hi Tom, > > By the way, I have just had a look at your draft. It seems that this draft > itself has nothing to do with the multi-tenancy capability which is the focus > of the NOV3 current charter.
FWIW, I agree it would be useful to add text to discuss the relationship to NVO3. > In addition, according to section 7 (Motivation for GUE) of this draft, it > seems that GUE is intended to be a generic UDP-based tunneling technology. > Therefore, should this draft be pursued in some WGs other than NVO3, e.g., > TSVWG or INTAREA. It will definitely get review there, but to some extent it already is - there are TSV and INT area feedback in this thread. > In this way, it would be helpful for us to better understand the differences > between GUE and GRE-in-UDP, and whether the concerns made by Joe Touch (see > below) have been addressed successfully, especially when considering the case > where the version is set to 1 (i.e., directly encapsulating IP packet over > UDP). I agree that these issues should be addressed here too, though - to be fair - some of them already are. Joe > > > +++++++++ > - 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) > ++++++++++ > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
