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

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Touch [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 2:57 PM
>> To: Xuxiaohu; Tom Herbert
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] [Int-area] Fwd: New Version Notification for
>> draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-03.txt
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> More confused to me:) Let me make it simpler, VXLAN was allocated a port number in 2011 which is 4789. VXLAN-GPE asked for a port in 2016, why allocate a new number rather than reusing the port number 4789 provided the port number resource was so sparse?  Your answers to the above question seems to be: 1)these two requests were not made at the same time, 2) VXLAN was not made *after* VXLAN-GPE. For the first answer, did you mean, for two proposals which could have shared the same port number, as long as they requests at different time no matter intended or not, they would be assigned two different port numbers. For the second answer, have you seen protocol X be made after an extension protocol to X?:)
>
VXLAN-GPE requires a different protocol number, the P-bit was not
sufficient. The problem was that VXLAN defined unknown flag bits to be
ignored upon receive. So if a legacy VLXAN device ever received a
VXLAN-GPE packet (P-bit set) it would be misinterpreted as a VLXAN
packet. Effectively this makes VXLAN-GPE a new protocol not a
different version of VXLAN. All of this was discussed on the nvo3
list.

Tom

> Xiaohu
>
>> 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
>>
>