On 6/16/2016 6:48 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote: > Tom, > > What's the real benefit of such implementation of IP-in-UDP compared to the >> approach as described draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03? Save one UDP port >> number? >> Yes, saves a port number.
More than that, GUE was accepted as a WG doc *and* has already been assigned a port number. > To save a port number, the header format is made ugly. Is it worthwhile? If > UDP port resource was so sparse as you had imagined, I think the UDP port > resource keeper would not allocate two different port numbers for VXLAN and > VXLAN-GPE since the P-bit in VXLAN-GPE header is enough to distinguish > VXLAN-GPE from VXLAN. For more details, please look at section 3.2 of > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-02#page-6). VXLAN was assigned in 2011. VXLAN-GPE was assigned this year (2016). If what you say is correct*, then you might be correct in assuming that a VXLAN-GPE assignment might inhibit a later VXLAN assignment, but that's not the order things happened. *(I haven't looked and don't plan to, because the point is irrelevant even if assumed) Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
