Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03

2016-05-20 Thread Joe Touch
On 5/20/2016 3:13 AM, Xuxiaohu wrote: > > Hi Joe, > > > > Thanks for your comment. Note that it’s WG adoption call rather than WGLC. > I gave reasons for not adopting it already, including key flaws and the fact that this doc has not evolved based on feedback in the past (thus my confidence

Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03

2016-05-20 Thread Tom Herbert
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:31 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Xuxiaohu wrote: >> >> Thanks for your comment. Note that it’s WG adoption call rather than WGLC. >> If I understand it correctly, as long as it’s worthwhile to provide >>

Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03

2016-05-20 Thread Black, David
-- As GRE/UDP draft shepherd > > Do equivalent arguments apply also to > > ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap/>? Not exactly ;-). The motivating GRE in UDP encap use cases involves operator use of GRE for traffic management, as summarized in the draft

Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03

2016-05-20 Thread Ted Lemon
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Xuxiaohu wrote: > Thanks for your comment. Note that it’s WG adoption call rather than WGLC. > If I understand it correctly, as long as it’s worthwhile to provide > fine-grained load-balancing of Softwire service traffic by leveraging the >

Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03

2016-05-20 Thread Xuxiaohu
Hi Brain, Thanks for your comments. Please see my response inline. > -Original Message- > From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E > Carpenter > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 9:17 AM > To: Wassim Haddad; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for

Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03

2016-05-20 Thread Xuxiaohu
Hi Joe, Thanks for your comment. Note that it's WG adoption call rather than WGLC. If I understand it correctly, as long as it's worthwhile to provide fine-grained load-balancing of Softwire service traffic by leveraging the UDP tunnels, the WG should adopt it and then work on it, e.g.,

Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03

2016-05-20 Thread Alexandre Petrescu
Locally we are using IP-in-UDP as provided by Mobile IPv4 specification for NAT Traversal, RFC 5265. I guess it is sufficient, why another document? (I have not read the doc). Alex Le 19/05/2016 à 19:03, Wassim Haddad a écrit : Dear all, The authors of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03