[Int-area] 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

[Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]>]

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Joe Touch [mailto:[e-mail]]
> 发送时间: 2017年5月20日 12:15
> 收件人: Xuxiaohu; Tom Herbert
> 抄送: [e-mail]
> 主题: Re: 答复: [Int-area] 答复: Is the UDP destination port number resource
> running out?// re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-gue-04.txt
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/19/2017 8:57 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
> > Hi Joe,
> >
> >> -----邮件原件-----
> >> 发件人: Joe Touch [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> 发送时间: 2017年5月20日 11:41
> >> 收件人: Xuxiaohu; Tom Herbert
> >> 抄送: [e-mail]
> >> 主题: Re: [Int-area] 答复: Is the UDP destination port number resource
> >> running out?// re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-gue-04.txt
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/19/2017 6:39 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
> >>> If the saving is beneficial, it'd better to assign a dedicated port
> >>> number for each UDP payload type( e.g., IP packet), rather than
> >>> combining the UDP port number dedicated for GUE and the version
> >>> field within the GUE header together to indicate whether the UDP
> >>> payload is GUE or IP (or even other payload type if the GUE is
> >>> devoted to help save the UDP port number resource for the IETF
> >>> community:))
> >> FWIW, IANA strives to assign one port for a service.
> > Great. Hence IPvx should be taken as a service rather than taking IPvx and
> GUE as a service, IMO.
> GUE is supposed to be both signalling and content (data), where the data are IP
> packets.

Since IANA strives to assign one port for a service, IP packet within the UDP tunnel should be assigned a dedicated port. In other words, GUE and IP-in-UDP are distinguished by the different port numbers. 

> Take away the IP part and GUE isn't an E anymore.
> >> Services are expected to have version fields and subtype
> >> demultiplexing indicators, to so that all message variants of current
> >> and future versions can use a single port number.
> > Sure, the version field within the IPvx packet could be used for demultiplexing
> purpose.
> 
> That demultiplexes within IPvx. There still needs to be a way to demultiplex
> non-IPvx packets (control) from IPvx.

Since GUE and IP-in-UDP have different UDP port numbers, I don't know why there is still a need to demultiplex GUE and IP-in-UDP.

Xiaohu

> Joe