you've got the perfect application to encourage UDP lite adoption and deployment here.
Lloyd Wood http://about.me/lloydwood ________________________________________ From: Stewart Bryant [[email protected]] Sent: 15 January 2014 11:31 To: Randy Bush Cc: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [mpls] OT (was Re: draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp was RE: gre-in-udp draft (was: RE: Milestones changed for tsvwg WG)) On 15/01/2014 11:08, Randy Bush wrote: > [ you insist on cc:ing me, so you get to endure my opinions ] > >> it seems that there are no valid statistics for the current Internet >> to sustain your case. > as we discussed privately, there seem to be no real measurements to > sustain any case. this is all conjecturbation. > > what i do not understand is why, given the lack of solid evidence that > we are in a safe space, you and others are not willing to spend a few > euro cents to have a reasonable level of assurance at this layer. > > randy Randy, It is not a few cents, it is likely the re-engineering of a lot of silicon. The reason that UDP is of interest is that the on path silicon knows how to process it, for example it knows how to to ECMP it. The reason that the UDP c/s is a problem for a tunneler is that it needs to have access to the whole pkt to calculate the c/s, but as you know the silicon optimised that access away a long time ago. The alternative would be UDP-lite, but the ability of on path silicon to process that as competently and as completely as it processes UDP is by no means clear. - Stewart _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
