Re: [nvo3] [Int-area] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-03.txt

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 6/16/2016 11:41 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
>> More than that, GUE was accepted as a WG doc *and* has already been
>> assigned a port number.
> Oh, a WG doc? a doc which has nothing to do with multi-tenancy but happens to be adopted by a WG working on multi-tenancy?
I'm not advocating where this doc *should be* - or should have been -
adopted. I'm simply noting that it already has been adopted. Which does
carry weight in the IANA assignment of ports (as noted in RFC 6335).

>
>>> To save a port number, the header format is made ugly. Is it worthwhile? If
>> UDP port resource was so sparse as you had imagined, I think the UDP port
>> resource keeper would not allocate two different port numbers for VXLAN and
>> VXLAN-GPE since the P-bit in VXLAN-GPE header is enough to distinguish
>> VXLAN-GPE from VXLAN. For more details, please look at section 3.2 of
>> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-02#page-6).
>> VXLAN was assigned in 2011.
>>
>> VXLAN-GPE was assigned this year (2016).
>>
>> If what you say is correct*, then you might be correct in assuming that a
>> VXLAN-GPE assignment might inhibit a later VXLAN assignment, but that's not
>> the order things happened.
> Your logic seems confused to me. My point is VXLAN-GPE should share the same port number (i.e., 4789) with VXLAN if the port number resource was so sparse. Unless that assumption is fake.

Your logic fails to consider that these two requests were not made at
the same time. Also, VXLAN was not made *after* VXLAN-GPE. If either of
these were true, then the argument for a single port number would be
important.

So, in brief, IMO (with my ports hat off) if you had a stronger argument
for UDP-in-IP (i.e., you convinced a WG to adopt it) *and* you proposed
it before GUE made its request, then things might have turned out
differently.

Joe