On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > All the arguments as to why VXLAN is insufficient in multi-tenant deployments was made in nvo3. Please read those and the GUE drafts (draft-hy-nvo3-gue-4-nvo-01, draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-00, and draft-hy-gue-4-secure-transport-01). If you have any comments or questions take them to the nvo3 list.
> While VXLAN is 1-N type of tunneling, GUE is 1-1. > I don't understand what this means. > 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
