Re: [Int-area] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: Is the UDP destination port number resource running out?// re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-gue-04.txt

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Joe,

I am for whatever allows us to do direct encapsulation (i.e., IP/UDP/IP with NULL GUE header)
in the simplest way possible. I'm not too concerned with future-proofing it; is that what you
are worried about?

Thanks - Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 3:14 PM
> To: Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>; Templin, Fred L <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: Is the UDP destination port number resource running out?// re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-
> intarea-gue-04.txt
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/25/2017 1:40 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Templin, Fred L
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> If you are talking about the GUE direct encapsulation of IPv4 and IPv6, I
> >> agree
> >>
> >> with the current spec and that direct encapsulation (i.e., with no
> >> additional
> >>
> >> encapsulations between the IP/UDP and inner IP headers) is desirable and
> >>
> >> should remain as part of the spec. I think we may be over-thinking this.
> >>
> > +1. I think a little too much has been inferred beyond the what is
> > actually in draft. Versions are straightforward:
> >
> > - There is a two bit version number field that begins GUE header. The
> > format of the rest of the header depends on the version.
> > - Version 0 defines an encapsulation header that encapsulates by IP
> > protocol number.
> > - Version 1 defined a means for direct encapsulation of select
> > protocols as an optimization. Formats for IPv4 and IPv6 are defined.
> > - Version 2 and 3 are reserved
> I continue to be confused as to why it is more useful to try to make
> decisions based on the first two bits rather than the first four.
> There's near zero benefit, and the harm is that you end up with only two
> reserved versions.
> 
> >
> > Rather Version 1 constitutes a new version or a different format seems
> > to be a matter of terminology, however semantically and implementation
> > wise the intent is clear. If it's necessary the field could be renamed
> > "version/format"
> It is not a version; I think that's at least part of the problem. It's a
> type or kind, but version implies that V0 is superceded by V1, which may
> or may not be backward compatible with V0.
> 
> Joe
> 
>