On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 5/25/2017 1:40 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Templin, Fred L >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> If you are talking about the GUE direct encapsulation of IPv4 and IPv6, I >>> agree >>> >>> with the current spec and that direct encapsulation (i.e., with no >>> additional >>> >>> encapsulations between the IP/UDP and inner IP headers) is desirable and >>> >>> should remain as part of the spec. I think we may be over-thinking this. >>> >> +1. I think a little too much has been inferred beyond the what is >> actually in draft. Versions are straightforward: >> >> - There is a two bit version number field that begins GUE header. The >> format of the rest of the header depends on the version. >> - Version 0 defines an encapsulation header that encapsulates by IP >> protocol number. >> - Version 1 defined a means for direct encapsulation of select >> protocols as an optimization. Formats for IPv4 and IPv6 are defined. >> - Version 2 and 3 are reserved > I continue to be confused as to why it is more useful to try to make > decisions based on the first two bits rather than the first four. > There's near zero benefit, and the harm is that you end up with only two > reserved versions. > If necessary, new version could be defined to be fours bits versions like version 1 so that gives thirteen possible versions (00 01xx 10xx 11xx) of which three have been defined. v0 is already quite extensible and generic so I don't see it will be obsoleted any time in the foreseeable future. Personally, I don't think rearranging the GUE header is needed at this point.
Tom _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
