> -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu] > Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 12:15 PM > To: Xuxiaohu; Tom Herbert > Cc: n...@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [nvo3] [Int-area] Fwd: New Version Notification for > draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-03.txt > > > > 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.
Oh, a WG doc? a doc which has nothing to do with multi-tenancy but happens to be adopted by a WG working on multi-tenancy? > > 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. Your logic seems confused to me. My point is VXLAN-GPE should share the same port number (i.e., 4789) with VXLAN if the port number resource was so sparse. Unless that assumption is fake. *******************http://www.honeypots.net/misc/services********************* vxlan 4789 udp Virtual eXtensible Local [Lawrence_Kreeger] [Lawrence_Kreeger] 2013-04-19 2014-06-17 [RFC 7348] Area Network (VXLAN) 4789 tcp Reserved Generic Protocol Extension vxlan-gpe 4790 udp for Virtual eXtensible Local [Lawrence_Kreeger] [Lawrence_Kreeger] 2014-08-26 Area Network (VXLAN) 4790 tcp Reserved ************************************************************************ > *(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
