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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 20/05/2016 15:39, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
> Do equivalent arguments apply also to <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap/>? 

I don't know. I've never found GRE a very interesting topic so I've never looked at that draft.

> Was this one reviewed by Int-area?

Not as far as I know, but it's still technically in TSVWG last call if you have comments.

    Brian

> 
> Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro.
> Excuze typofraphicak errows
> 
>> On May 19, 2016, at 21:17, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> As a famous physicist once said when the discovery of the muon was announced, "Who ordered that?"
>>
>> In other words, I don't understand the use case that motivated this.
>> In the Introduction, I find:
>>
>>  "By encapsulating the Softwire
>>   service traffic into an UDP tunnel and using the source port of the
>>   UDP header as an entropy field, the existing load-balancing
>>   capability as mentioned above can be leveraged to provide fine-
>>   grained load-balancing of Softwire service traffic traffic over IP
>>   networks."
>>
>> What is meant by "the Softwire service traffic"? Does it just mean a
>> bunch of traffic from a single customer? Why does it all need a
>> common header for load balancing? The individual microflows in the
>> traffic will all get load-balanced anyway.
>>
>> I trust we are only talking about IPv6. If we're talking about IPv4, we
>> certainly shouldn't be developing new methods. If we're talking about
>> IPv6, we have the flow label for this (and it avoids tricky problems
>> like finding the transport header in the presence of extension headers).
>> That's already covered in RFC 6438 for any kind of tunnel, although
>> IP in IP seems a lot simpler than IP in UDP in IP.
>>
>> (If you really must do IPv4, IPv4 in IPv6 could still be load-balanced
>> as per RFC 6438, I guess.)
>>
>>   Brian
>>
>>
>>> On 20/05/2016 05:03, Wassim Haddad wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> The authors of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03 (“Encapsulating IP in UDP”) have requested that the working group adopt this work as a WG work item.
>>> So far, WG chairs have not seen widespread support and considering that lack of opposition does not qualify as support, we’re starting a working group adoption call until June 3rd. 
>>>
>>> If you consider that the draft should be adopted as a WG work item, please indicate the reason.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Wassim & Juan Carlos
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>