> > Change the GUE header to treat the first nibble as a next header selector. 4 > means IPv4, 6 means IPv6 and X means GUE. > [Lucy] As I mentioned in several previous mails, I don't think that > this is a good design for GUE. Even if a compression is required, the > solution SHOULD use a separate UDP port to indicate IP first and then check > the first nibble for IPv4 or IPv6, which, in fact, is the IP-in- UDP proposal.
I will say again that the IP-in-UDP proposal as it stands does not have a solution for tunnel fragmentation (made available by GUE). [Lucy] That is true. The IP-in-UDP proposal applies the case where no fragmentation at tunnel end point is needed. GUE can deal with it. > However I agree with Tom that the compression concept does not align > with GUE principal. GUE encapsulation should not assume IP payload in first > place! The proposed solution does not assume IP; it assumes a next header selector in the first nibble of the data following the UDP header. Non IP can be conveyed when the next header selector indicates GUE. [Lucy] the first nibble is intended for indicating version of IP, not for a next header selector. Forcing other protocol to follow this assumption is bad. Please read RFC4928. There are many cases that GUE payload is IP or other and GUE header is required. The first nibble design splits majority from a corner case as first logic, which is a bad design. The "compression" version does not have the same tunnel property as GUE based tunnel, we should not mix them at design level. Lucy Thanks - Fred [email protected] > Regards, > Lucy > > > > 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
