Hi Lucy, > -----Original Message----- > From: Lucy yong [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 7:48 AM > To: Templin, Fred L; [email protected]; [email protected] > 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. Thanks - Fred [email protected] > Lucy > > Thanks - Fred > [email protected] > > > 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 > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Int-area mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
