Hi Tom,

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Herbert <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Templin, Fred L
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 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.

While VXLAN is 1-N type of tunneling, GUE is 1-1.

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
>> [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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to