[nvo3] 答复: 答复: [Int-area] Is the UDP destination port number resource running out?// re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-gue-04.txt

[Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom, 

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Tom Herbert [mailto:[e-mail]]
> 发送时间: 2017年5月20日 23:46
> 收件人: Xuxiaohu
> 抄送: [e-mail]
> 主题: Re: 答复: [Int-area] Is the UDP destination port number resource running
> out?// re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-gue-04.txt
> 
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > Thanks for your quick response. Please see my reply inline.
> >
> >> -----邮件原件-----
> >> 发件人: Tom Herbert [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> 发送时间: 2017年5月19日 22:57
> >> 收件人: Xuxiaohu
> >> 抄送: [e-mail]
> >> 主题: Re: [Int-area] Is the UDP destination port number resource
> >> running out?//
> >> re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-gue-04.txt
> >>
> >> Hi Xuxiaohu,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the comments. Some response are inline.
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > With regard to directly encapsulating IPvx packet in UDP, I think
> >> > the following
> >> argument for using Version 1 of GUE is not valid:
> >> >
> >> > "This technique saves encapsulation overhead on costly links
> >> >    for the common use of IP encapsulation, and also obviates the need to
> >> >    allocate a separate port number for IP-over-UDP encapsulation."
> >> >
> >> > First, I don't think the encapsulation overhead of 4 bytes is a matter.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure everyone would agree with that. The case was made when
> >> we were discussing it that the savings would be beneficial for some
> deployments.
> >
> > 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:))
> 
> Xuxiaohu,
> 
> We have already implemented the facility to directly encapsulate an IP protocol
> directly in UDP. This is FOU-over-UDP (FOU) and in fact GRE-in-UDP is just one
> sub case of the implementation. I know people are using FOU for various
> protocols in their networks, however I doubt we get very far if we requested
> 256 ports to directly encapsulate each IP protocol! It might make sense to
> document FOU as informational.

There had been a Foo-over-UDP draft (see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yong-tsvwg-udp-encap-4-ip-tunneling-01). However, the reality is that different Foo's are specified in dedicated drafts since many foo-specific considerations need to be specified.

> >
> > BTW, what happens if any other GUE payload has the same desire of saving
> the 4 byte GUE header overhead?
> 
> The only other candidate beyond IPv4 and IPv6 that has been suggested is
> Ethernet which would be EtherIP. That is pretty feasible to support if there is
> enough desire.

Could you explain how to support the encapsulation of Ethernet without the 4-octect overhead? By the way, why Ethernet is the only other candidate since GUE is claimed to be generic?

> >
> >> > However, the premise is that it's meaningful for the IETF to
> >> > develop such a GENERIC and COVERALL encapsulation method which is
> >> > still looking for nails:)
> >>
> >> The protocol is called *Generic* UDP Encapsulation for reason.
> >
> > I know that you are trying to specify a generic UDP encapsulation. However,
> there has been a generic UDP encapsulation scheme that is GRE-in-UDP
> [RFC8086]. Furthermore, there is another generic UDP encapsulation scheme
> called GENEVE that the NVO3 group is working on. It's better for the IETF
> community to avoid specifying multiple similar encapsulation schemes and
> therefore the NVo3 WG co-chairs and the corresponding AD try their best to
> reach a consensus of working together on a single encapsulation on the basis of
> GENEVE among the WG members. Do you still believe it's helpful for the
> industry to specify one additional generic encapsulation scheme in another IETF
> WG?
> >
> Yes. The reason we needed to define GUE is that no other encapsulation
> protocol satisfies the requirements. GRE comes close, and in fact GUE is based
> on GRE. We love GRE for the datacenter. It's generic, extensible, simple,
> flag-fields are super efficient, and all hardware we tested works well with it. The
> downside of GRE is that it's extensibility is quite limited; we can only get 12
> bytes for fields.
> That's just not enough. The particular need we had was to add security to
> authenticate the header. We actually we're able to "find" 64 bits of in the fields
> by overloading checksum and sequence number, but that is really not enough
> for security. Besides that, there are other needs for extensibility like
> fragmentation, checksum, payload transform.
> We'll only ever need a handful of such extensions, but it's more than can be fit
> into GRE. So GUE is an answer. It has the same efficiency of GRE but is more
> extensible. Since it is a new protocol we are able to add a few other nice to have
> features like header length, encap by IP protocol, and private data block. Section
> 6 in the draft gives a motivation for GUE.

If GRE-in-UDP is not enough, what about GENEVE? (cced to NVO3)

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> Tom