On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Templin, Fred L <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tom, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 10:13 AM >> To: Templin, Fred L >> Cc: Lucy yong; [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE? >> >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Templin, Fred L >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi Tom, >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:00 AM >> >> To: Templin, Fred L >> >> Cc: Lucy yong; [email protected]; [email protected] >> >> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE? >> >> >> >> 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 >> > >> > The only additional requirement is to check the first nibble of the >> > UDP-encapsulated payload. >> > >> >> 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, 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. >> > >> > What you have just done is spelled out specific use cases that >> > require special-purpose solutions - that is not "generic". >> > >> >> 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. >> > >> > That would require two different UDP port numbers as opposed to >> > checking the first nibble, which there was some earlier discussion >> > about. If you want to call something "generic", then why not make it >> > truly generic? >> > >> >> It already is generic. Encapsulation of IPv4 and IPv6 is already >> implemented and deployed. Including this optimization does not make >> the protocol more generic. > > If it is deployed before the document is published as an RFC, then > the deployed base would have to be updated to match the eventual > RFC anyway. > >> Anyway, if you want to proceed with this please provide a specific >> proposal on how do to it. > > Change the GUE header to treat the first nibble as a next header > selector. 4 means IPv4, 6 means IPv6 and X means GUE. > By "specific" I mean down to the bit what *exactly* will this new proposed GUE header format be.
> Thanks - Fred > [email protected] > >> Tom >> >> > Thanks - Fred >> > [email protected] >> > >> >> 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
