> -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 12:33 AM > To: Xuxiaohu; Donald Eastlake; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [trill] Fwd: Mail regarding draft-ietf-trill-over-ip > > > > On 5/4/2015 7:23 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote: > > In a word, IP-in-UDP is just intended for those network environments > > where fragmentation on the tunnel layer and strong checksums are not > > desired. > > That's insufficient. They are only applicable where fragmentation and a strong > checksum are not *needed*.
Agree that "needed" is a more appropriate word. > Once you run IP in IP (IP in UDP in IP qualifies as this), you have only two > choices: > > - support fragmentation > > - use in networks that are engineered so that > fragmentation is never needed > > As to the strong checksum, similarly you have to either support one or deploy > the result where that checksum isn't needed - either because you know that all > apps will have strong enough checksums of their own or because you know > enough about the kinds of errors that will occur that strong checksums aren't > needed. > > But the key there is to define a use case where these properties are true AND > to > limit the document solution to uses in those case ONLY. The use case is the Softwire networks (including both mesh and hub-spoke modes) where IP-in-IP and IP-in-GRE are good enough to address the MTU and checksum issues. Best regards, Xiaohu > > For those network environments where fragmentation on the tunnel layer > > and stronger checksums are required, GUE should be considered instead. > > Agreed. > > Joe _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
