On 5/3/2015 7:40 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
We're talking about IP-in-IP, IP-in-UDP-in-IP, IP-in-GRE-in-IP, etc. In all
cases, you
have:
N inside N+header
Assume N is equal to 8000, since the max size of the original IP
packet is 1500, isn't it (i.e., 8000-1500) large enough to hold
-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 9:06 AM
To: Xuxiaohu; Templin, Fred L; Lucy yong; Tom Herbert
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
On 5/3/2015 7:53 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote
-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 10:22 PM
To: Xuxiaohu; Templin, Fred L; Lucy yong; Tom Herbert
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
On 4/29/2015 8:01 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
Hi
-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 10:22 PM
To: Xuxiaohu; Templin, Fred L; Lucy yong; Tom Herbert
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
On 4/29/2015 8:01 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
Hi
On 4/29/2015 8:01 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
Hi Templin,
...
Existing tunnel protocols (IP*-in-IP*) are deficient in not providing a
tunnel
fragmentation mechanism per Section 3.1.7 of RFC2764.
You may have noticed a fact that most modern routers and switches
have been capable of processing
Hi,
-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 7:22 AM
To: Xuxiaohu; Templin, Fred L; Lucy yong; Tom Herbert
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
On 4/29/2015 8:01 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
Hi
combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
Getting back to our earlier discussion, IP-in-UDP and GUE are currently two
half-solutions. Put them together and you get a whole
solution.
Keep them apart, and someone else is going to have to write a whole solution
sometime down the line from now.
[Lucy] GUE
: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Templin, Fred L
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com wrote:
Hi Lucy,
-Original Message-
From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 7:48 AM
To: Templin, Fred L; stbry
To: Templin, Fred L; stbry...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
Getting back to our earlier discussion, IP-in-UDP and GUE are currently two
half-solutions. Put them together and you get a whole
solution.
Keep them apart, and someone else
yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 7:48 AM
To: Templin, Fred L; stbry...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
Getting back to our earlier discussion, IP-in-UDP and GUE are currently
two half-solutions. Put them
Hi Lucy,
-Original Message-
From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 11:15 AM
To: Templin, Fred L; Tom Herbert
Cc: stbry...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
Hi Fred,
Change the GUE header
Hi Lucy,
-Original Message-
From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 11:48 AM
To: Templin, Fred L; Tom Herbert
Cc: stbry...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
Change the GUE header to treat
Hi Tom,
-Original Message-
From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 11:45 AM
To: Templin, Fred L
Cc: Lucy yong; stbry...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:20 AM
, 2015 7:48 AM
To: Templin, Fred L; stbry...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
Getting back to our earlier discussion, IP-in-UDP and GUE are currently
two half-solutions. Put them together and you get a whole
solution.
Keep them apart
Hi Tom,
-Original Message-
From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 10:13 AM
To: Templin, Fred L
Cc: Lucy yong; stbry...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:28 AM
Hi Fred,
Change the GUE header to treat the first nibble as a next header selector. 4
means IPv4, 6 means IPv6 and X means GUE.
[Lucy] As I mentioned in several previous mails, I don't think that this is a
good design for GUE. Even if a compression is required, the solution SHOULD use
a
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com wrote:
Hi Lucy,
-Original Message-
From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 7:48 AM
To: Templin, Fred L; stbry...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
Getting back to our
Subject: RE: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
Getting back to our earlier discussion, IP-in-UDP and GUE are currently
two half-solutions. Put them together and you get a whole
solution.
Keep them apart, and someone else is going to have to write a whole
solution sometime down the line
Hi Lucy,
-Original Message-
From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lucy yong
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 7:31 AM
To: stbry...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
-Original Message-
From: Int
-Original Message-
From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 2:32 AM
To: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
I confess that I have only skimmed this thread, but as far as I can see
Getting back to our earlier discussion, IP-in-UDP and GUE are currently two
half-solutions. Put them together and you get a whole solution.
Keep them apart, and someone else is going to have to write a whole solution
sometime down the line from now.
[Lucy] GUE can support IP payload. Don't
Hi Lucy,
-Original Message-
From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 7:48 AM
To: Templin, Fred L; stbry...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
Getting back to our earlier discussion, IP-in-UDP
Hi Templin,
Change the GUE header to treat the first nibble as a next header selector. 4
means IPv4, 6 means IPv6 and X means GUE.
I fully understand your intention. However, it depends on whether it's widely
acceptable to take GUE as IPvx which in turn could carry IPv4 and IPv6 packets.
[Lucy] since GUE aims to encapsulation for a payload, it needs a
payload field.
If GUE encapsulates only IPv4 and IPv6, it would need no payload type field.
If GUE encapsulates other payloads as well as IPv4 and IPv6, then it
needs a payload type field. However, one type should be IP.
There
Hi Tom,
-Original Message-
From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 5:11 PM
To: Joe Touch
Cc: Templin, Fred L; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu
Hi Tom,
-Original Message-
From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 10:38 AM
To: Joe Touch
Cc: Templin, Fred L; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 4/27/2015 5:11 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
...
Without any optional fields or flags, the difference with GUE is an
additional four byte header between the UDP
On 4/28/2015 10:36 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 10:29 AM
To: Templin, Fred L; Tom Herbert
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
On 4/28/2015
On 4/28/2015 10:13 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Tom,
...
Without any optional fields or flags, the difference with GUE is an
additional four byte header between the UDP header and the
encapsulated IP header. For IPv4 that header is 0x0004, and for
IPv6 the header is 0x0029
...
On 4/28/2015 10:44 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
There are different IP protocol numbers for encapsulating IPv4 and
IPv6. 0x4 is the IP protocol for IPIP, 0x29 is the number for IPv4
Right, that makes two ways of doing things (same as in AERO).
Which means:
a) you now need to decide what to
Hi Joe,
-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 10:29 AM
To: Templin, Fred L; Tom Herbert
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
On 4/28/2015 10:13 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Tom
On 4/28/2015 10:38 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 4/27/2015 5:11 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
...
Without any optional fields or flags, the difference with GUE is an
-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 1:29 PM
To: Lucy yong; Templin, Fred L; Tom Herbert
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
On 4/28/2015 11:24 AM, Lucy yong wrote:
Hi Fred,
GUE uses UDP
Hi Fred,
GUE uses UDP port to indicate GUE encapsulation as UDP payload and
GUE has prototype field to indicate the payload type. Making an
exception and requiring inspection of first nibble at end points is
not a good idea.
Yes, GUE has an officially assigned UDP port number (same
BTW, this style of encapsulation goes back a long time. I gave up on
SEAL when I started working on AERO(bis) in earnest, but the SEAL
work goes back many years:
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-templin-intarea-seal-68.txt
Thanks - Fred
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
Hi Lucy,
Think of IP-in-UDP as simply GUE with header compression.
[Lucy] Understand, but somehow don't like this compression.
They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But, whether we
like it or not, 4 bytes is 4 bytes.
Thanks - Fred
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 4/28/2015 11:24 AM, Lucy yong wrote:
Hi Fred,
GUE uses UDP port to indicate GUE encapsulation as UDP payload and
GUE has prototype field to indicate the payload type. Making an
exception and requiring inspection of first
On 4/28/2015 11:49 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
If you examine the first 4-bits of the IP field, you will:
- work with any IP version in the future
- no need new GUE codepoints for new IP versions
If you keep duplicate information in the header, you will:
- need
-Original Message-
From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 12:44 PM
To: Tom Herbert; Joe Touch
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
Hi Tom,
-Original Message-
From: Tom Herbert
On 4/28/2015 11:24 AM, Lucy yong wrote:
Hi Fred,
GUE uses UDP port to indicate GUE encapsulation as UDP payload and
GUE has prototype field to indicate the payload type. Making an
exception and requiring inspection of first nibble at end points is
not a good idea.
I don't like the
Hi Lucy,
-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 11:29 AM
To: Lucy yong; Templin, Fred L; Tom Herbert
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
On 4/28/2015 11:24 AM, Lucy yong wrote:
Hi
On 4/28/2015 11:53 AM, Lucy yong wrote:
There's no downside to using the existing IP version field here, and
there are many downsides to using a duplicate field.
[Lucy] GUE is designed to encapsulate a payload, not just IP payload.
GUE protocol field needs to support IP payload type because
Joe,
There's no downside to using the existing IP version field here, and
there are many downsides to using a duplicate field.
[Lucy] GUE is designed to encapsulate a payload, not just IP payload.
GUE protocol field needs to support IP payload type because the tunnel
may require other
combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Templin, Fred L
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com wrote:
In case anyone is wondering why I have suggested combining IP-in-UDP
with
GUE, there may be some uses where only some packets in a flow need to
include the GUE header whereas
...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Touch
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 3:04 PM
To: Tom Herbert
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
Hi, Tom (et al.),
On 4/27/2015 1:53 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
It's just that I don't see much benefit in these approaches other
Hi, Tom (et al.),
On 4/27/2015 1:53 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
It's just that I don't see much benefit in these approaches other than
the four bytes savings. IMO, the main drawback of directly encapsulating
IP in UDP is that it instantly becomes a feature frozen in time. We can
never improve upon
: Monday, April 27, 2015 3:04 PM
To: Tom Herbert
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
Hi, Tom (et al.),
On 4/27/2015 1:53 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
It's just that I don't see much benefit in these approaches other than
the four bytes savings. IMO
[mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Touch
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 3:04 PM
To: Tom Herbert
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
Hi, Tom (et al.),
On 4/27/2015 1:53 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
It's just that I don't see much benefit
To: Tom Herbert
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
Hi, Tom (et al.),
On 4/27/2015 1:53 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
It's just that I don't see much benefit in these approaches other than
the four bytes savings. IMO, the main drawback of directly
In case anyone is wondering why I have suggested combining IP-in-UDP with
GUE, there may be some uses where only some packets in a flow need to
include the GUE header whereas the vast majority of packets could go as
IPv4 or IPv6 raw encapsulation. So, having everything together under the
same UDP
if anyone wants
to see it.
Thanks - Fred
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
-Original Message-
From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 9:42 AM
To: Brian Haberman; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Templin, Fred L
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com wrote:
In case anyone is wondering why I have suggested combining IP-in-UDP with
GUE, there may be some uses where only some packets in a flow need to
include the GUE header whereas the vast majority of packets could go
-Original Message-
From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com]
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 10:10 AM
To: Templin, Fred L
Cc: Brian Haberman; int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Templin, Fred L
53 matches
Mail list logo
