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

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Behcet Sarikaya
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Templin, Fred L
>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Lucy,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Lucy yong [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 7:48 AM
>>>>>>> To: Templin, Fred L; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>>>>> Subject: 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 know why you state that they are two half-solutions. Is the compression a mandatory
>>>>>>> requirement here? I think that IP-in-UDP proposal as a compression version is better that use of first nibble. However we need clarify
>>>>>>> what limitation and constraint the compression solution has.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GUE is missing header compression, and IP-in-UDP is missing tunnel
>>>>>> fragmentation. That is what I mean when I say that if combined you
>>>>>> get a whole solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Adding this header compression just adds a whole bunch of complexity
>>>>> to the protocol to save a grand total of four bytes for what is likely
>>>>> a very narrow use case.
>>>>
>>>>>This is not applicable when GUE is used for
>>>>> network virtualization,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think GUE is a replacement or even an improvement for VXLAN
>>>> encapsulation.
>>>>
>>> All the arguments as to why VXLAN is insufficient in multi-tenant
>>> deployments was made in nvo3. Please read those and the GUE drafts
>>> (draft-hy-nvo3-gue-4-nvo-01,
>>> draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-00,
>>
>> I read this draft, I could not see any such arguments. It just
>> mentions VXLAN as a reference like other things.
>>
>> If true, it should explicitly address this issue.
>> I am not sure if it can say more than what it is that is a generic
>> encapsulation techniques that can be used in the data center to tunnel
>> things.
>>
>> But VXLAN is designed to provide VM-to-VM communication.
>> So the design criteria is completely different in these two techniques.
>>
> GUE has been adopted by nvo3 network virtualization data plane, along
> with Geneve and VXLAN-GPE-- VXLAN has not. Again if you have comments
> on that use of GUE please take them to nvo3. This thread is about a
> generic modification to GUE without respect to the network
> virtualization use case.

I reacted on this thread because you claimed network virtualization
use case now you are saying it is not about that.

I am fine then :-)

Regards,
Behcet
>
>>> and
>>> draft-hy-gue-4-secure-transport-01). If you have any comments or
>>> questions take them to the nvo3 list.
>>>
>>>> While VXLAN is 1-N type of tunneling, GUE is 1-1.
>>>>
>>> I don't understand what this means.
>>
>> The key is in VM-to-VM communication. The other VM could be under any
>> VTEP or NVE.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Behcet
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Behcet
>>>>> we are encapsulating something other than IP,
>>>>> we need OAM, or using any other feature of GUE. In my deployment, I
>>>>> don't have any use case for that since minimally I will be using
>>>>> remote checksum offload option because that does give a material
>>>>> performance advantage.
>>>>>
>>>>> The premise of GUE is simple, it has a simple header that encapsulates
>>>>> any IP protocol expressed by IP protocol number and allows optional
>>>>> extensions and control packets-- let's keep it simple! If saving those
>>>>> four bytes is really important in some deployment and GUE is still
>>>>> needed in certain case, then just use GUE and IP-in-UDP in tandem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks - Fred
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lucy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks - Fred
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > However, if GUE payload is
>>>>>>> > IP, it is OK to inspect the first nibble of the payload to determine IPv4 or IPv6 because this aligns with IP protocol.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Thanks,
>>>>>>> > Lucy
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > - Stewart
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> > 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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