On 5/19/2017 8:57 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote: > Hi Joe, > >> -----邮件原件----- >> 发件人: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu] >> 发送时间: 2017年5月20日 11:41 >> 收件人: Xuxiaohu; Tom Herbert >> 抄送: int-area@ietf.org >> 主题: Re: [Int-area] 答复: Is the UDP destination port number resource running >> out?// re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-gue-04.txt >> >> >> >> On 5/19/2017 6:39 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote: >>> If the saving is beneficial, it'd better to assign a dedicated port >>> number for each UDP payload type( e.g., IP packet), rather than >>> combining the UDP port number dedicated for GUE and the version field >>> within the GUE header together to indicate whether the UDP payload is >>> GUE or IP (or even other payload type if the GUE is devoted to help >>> save the UDP port number resource for the IETF community:)) >> FWIW, IANA strives to assign one port for a service. > Great. Hence IPvx should be taken as a service rather than taking IPvx and > GUE as a service, IMO. GUE is supposed to be both signalling and content (data), where the data are IP packets.
Take away the IP part and GUE isn't an E anymore. >> Services are expected to have version fields and subtype demultiplexing >> indicators, to so that all message variants of current and future versions >> can use >> a single port number. > Sure, the version field within the IPvx packet could be used for > demultiplexing purpose. That demultiplexes within IPvx. There still needs to be a way to demultiplex non-IPvx packets (control) from IPvx. Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
