On 6/16/2016 11:41 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote: >> 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? I'm not advocating where this doc *should be* - or should have been - adopted. I'm simply noting that it already has been adopted. Which does carry weight in the IANA assignment of ports (as noted in RFC 6335).
> >>> 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. Your logic fails to consider that these two requests were not made at the same time. Also, VXLAN was not made *after* VXLAN-GPE. If either of these were true, then the argument for a single port number would be important. So, in brief, IMO (with my ports hat off) if you had a stronger argument for UDP-in-IP (i.e., you convinced a WG to adopt it) *and* you proposed it before GUE made its request, then things might have turned out differently. Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
