Hi all, I find this architectural draft quite valuable. Furthermore, since UDP has been widely used as an effective tunneling technology, such as MPLS-over-UDP (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7510/), it would be very helpful to include more guidance on how to design elegant UDP tunnels.
Let me give a concrete example: GUE variation 1 is just the encapsulation of IP within UDP. But to distinguish between variation 1 and variation 0 (i.e., complete GUE header), which share the same UDP destination port, GUE has to resort to the nibble (i.e., the first 4 bits) after the UDP header—an inelegant method that MPLS has to use because its label stack lacks a protocol identifier field (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xu-mpls-payload-protocol-identifier/). The UDP destination port already plays the role of a protocol identifier, and therefore it seems straightforward to allocate dedicated ports for IP-in-UDP encapsulations, as described in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp/, rather than using the inelegant approach as mentioned above. If the UDP destination port resource were so scarce, the UDP destination port reserved for multicast applications（https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-multicast-application-port-00）could be donated for IP-in-UDP encapsulation. Best regards, Xiaohu
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- int-area@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to int-area-le...@ietf.org
