Tom, It seems that your argument is based on an assumption that GUE is the only UDP tunnel mechanism implemented on the chip. What about if other UDP tunnel mechanisms (e.g., VXLAN, GENEVE and MPLS-in-UDP) are implemented as well? Best regards,Xiaohu ------------------------------------------------------------------From:Tom Herbert <[email protected]>Send Time:2018年5月18日(星期五) 09:52To:徐小虎(义先) <[email protected]>Cc:Int-area <[email protected]>; Joe Touch <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Internet Area <[email protected]>Subject:Re: [Int-area] 回复： Request a WG adoption call for draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 6:41 PM, 徐小虎(义先) <[email protected]> wrote: > It's different. In GUE variant 1, the tunnel decapsulation device needs to > read the UDP destination port to determine that the UDP payload is a GUE and > then to read the first two nibble of the GUE payload to determine whether > the UDP payload is actually an IP payload. It introduces an absolutely > unnecessary complexity in the procedure, especially for chips. > I don't follow. In SW this is a grand total of a single mask and conditional (maybe 3 assembly instructions). In HW this is nothing more than programming the TCAM with entries that match GUE v0, GUE v1 IPv4, GUE v1 IPv6. Complexity of implementation is completely insignificant.
Tom > Xiaohu > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > From:Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]> > Send Time:2018年5月18日(星期五) 09:28 > To:Joe Touch <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> > Cc:Internet Area <[email protected]> > Subject:Re: [Int-area] 回复： Request a WG adoption call for > draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp > >>Because it isn’t different. Again, see GUE variant 1. > > > > Correct. There is no reason to progress another draft that does the > > same thing as GUE variant 1. > > > > Fred > > > > > > From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe Touch > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 7:55 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Internet Area <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Int-area] 回复： Request a WG adoption call for > draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp > > > > Because it isn’t different. Again, see GUE variant 1. > > > On May 17, 2018, at 7:18 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:22 PM, 徐小虎(义先) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > It doesn't matter whether or not it's already there. IMHO, given the > popularity of different overlay technologies such as VXLAN and MPLS-in-UDP > in practice, GUE initially and mainly targeted as a DC overlay approach has > little change to be widely deployed within data centers. > > > > As such, if the only possible applicability of GUE is for directly carrying > IP over UDP, I don't understand why we need such a overhead associated with > the variation of GUE. In another word, why not directly assign a port to > indicate IP-in-UDP, instead of using the GUE protocol variant number to > indicate. By the way, this the GUE protocol variant number usage reminds me > of the notorious misuse of the first nibble of the MPLS payload to indicate > the type of the MPLS payload:) > > > > > > I agree and support the adoption. > > > > I supported GUE in the past.. > > Why not have another way of UDP encapsulation with the possibility of a > different area of applicability? > > > > Regards, > > Behcet > > Xiaohu > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From:Joe Touch <[email protected]> > > Send Time:2018年5月16日(星期三) 15:45 > > To:徐小虎(义先) <[email protected]> > > Cc:Tom Herbert <[email protected]>; Internet Area <[email protected]>; > intarea-chairs <[email protected]>; draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp > <[email protected]> > > Subject:Re: [Int-area] 回复： Request a WG adoption call for > draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp > > > > It’s not complex. It’s already there. So there continues to be no reason to > waste either a port number or further time discussing this draft. > > > > Joe > > > On May 15, 2018, at 9:01 PM, 徐小虎(义先) <[email protected]> wrote: > > IMHO，there seems no need to introduce such complexity into GUE just for the > purpose of saving one port number. > > Xiaohu > > > > > 来自钉钉专属商务邮箱 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > 发件人：Tom Herbert<[email protected]> > 日 期：2018年05月16日 11:55:49 > 收件人：徐小虎(义先)<[email protected]> > 抄 送：Erik Kline<[email protected]>; Internet Area<[email protected]>; > draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp<[email protected]>; > intarea-chairs<[email protected]> > 主 题：Re: [Int-area] Request a WG adoption call for draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp > > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:33 PM, 徐小虎(义先) <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Eric, >> >> Good question. This draft (draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp) describes a native >> UDP encapsulation scheme for IP packets, which is straightforward and >> light-weighted, just as MPLS-in-UDP [RFC7510] and TRILL-in-UDP >> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-trill-over-ip-16#page-20) and etc. >> > GUE variant 1 implements native UDP encapsulation for IPv4 and IPv6. > Except for a different port number, there is no protocol difference > between that and doing IP in UDP as separate protocol. > > Tom > > >> Best regards, >> Xiaohu >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> From:Erik Kline <[email protected]> >> Send Time:2018年5月16日(星期三) 11:07 >> To:徐小虎(义先) <[email protected]> >> Cc:intarea-chairs <[email protected]>; >> draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp <[email protected]>; >> Internet Area <[email protected]> >> Subject:Re: [Int-area] Request a WG adoption call for >> draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp >> >> Should this document make some comment about its relation, or lack of >> relation, to https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-gue ? >> On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 11:53, 徐小虎(义先) <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi co-chairs, >> >>> We would like to request a WG adoption call for this draft ( >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-07) since it has >> been stable enough and the solution as described in this draft is needed >> in >> practice. >> >>> Best regards, >>> Xiaohu (on behalf of all co-authors) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
