Re: [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...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Int-area] Why

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Templin, Fred L fred.l.temp...@boeing.com wrote: Hi Tom, -Original Message- From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:00 AM To: Templin, Fred L Cc: Lucy yong; stbry...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org Subject: Re:

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

Hi Tom, On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Herbert t...@herbertland.com wrote: 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:

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Tom, On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Herbert t...@herbertland.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Templin, Fred L fred.l.temp...@boeing.com wrote: Hi Lucy, -Original Message- From: Lucy

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

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

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

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

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

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,

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Tom Herbert t...@herbertland.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Tom Herbert t...@herbertland.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Behcet Sarikaya

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

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,

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

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

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Tom Herbert t...@herbertland.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Tom, On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Herbert t...@herbertland.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Templin, Fred L

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Tom Herbert t...@herbertland.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Tom, On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Herbert

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

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:

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

-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

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 from now. [Lucy] GUE can support IP payload. Don't

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

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

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

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.