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

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

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, 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.

> 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