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

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Templin, Fred L
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 8:59 AM
>> To: Templin, Fred L <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03
>>
>> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Templin, Fred L
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > Hi Tom,
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Int-area [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert
>> >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 9:14 AM
>> >> To: Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>
>> >> Cc: [e-mail]
>> >> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:31 AM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]> 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
>> >> >> UDP tunnels, the WG should adopt it and then work on it, e.g., addressing
>> >> >> those issues as you mentioned.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > The WG shouldn't adopt it unless there is a clear motivation for doing so,
>> >> > and no existing solutions to the same problem.   That is the case you need
>> >> > to make.   What various people are saying is that they don't believe you
>> >> > have made that case.   That is how it appears to me as well.
>> >> >
>> >> There is an existing solution to the same problem. GUE allows
>> >> encapsulation of IPv4 and IPv6, as well as other IP protocols (the GUE
>> >> header indicates encapsulated protocol by IP number). The only
>> >> material between GUE encapsulation of IP and IP in UDP is additional
>> >> four byte header and associated processing of that. I don't think
>> >> we've seen a use case where avoiding that overhead is critical
>> >> motivation.
>> >
>> > I thought at one time we had come up with an idea for omitting the GUE
>> > header when the payload is a plain IPv4/IPv6 packet. There was a check
>> > of the first four bits following the UDP header to see if they encoded the
>> > value '4' or '6'. Did that not make it into the draft?
>> >
>> Yes, we had come up with the idea and I have implemented the
>> prototype. It is not in the draft. I believe the only discernible
>> benefit we could identify was that it saves 4 bytes of overhead. The
>> major drawback is that this only works specifically for IPv4 and IPv6.
>
> I don't see the drawback; I think those two IP protocol versions could
> carry us forward into the forseeable future. Are you thinking there
> could be another IP version on the near term horizon?
>
It's not about another IP version, we are using GUE to encapsulate
various IP protocols-- GRE, MPLS, EtherIP, TCP and SCTP (in
draft-herbert-transports-over-udp-00), etc.

Tom

> Thanks - Fred
>
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> > Thanks - Fred
>> > [e-mail]
>> >
>> >> Tom
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > Int-area mailing list
>> >> > [e-mail]
>> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Int-area mailing list
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>