Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

Hi Templin, > -Original Message- > From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 3:16 AM > To: Lucy yong; Tom Herbert > Cc: int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE? > > Hi Lucy, > > > ---

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

Hi Templin, > Change the GUE header to treat the first nibble as a next header selector. 4 > means IPv4, 6 means IPv6 and X means GUE. I fully understand your intention. However, it depends on whether it's widely acceptable to take GUE as IPvx which in turn could carry IPv4 and IPv6 packets. Be

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

Hi, I have been trying to convince myself how it would work if the IP-in-UDP and GUE remained as two separate UDP port numbers. I can certainly open multiple UDP sockets in an application and send and receive packets over the sockets while considering them to be "bonded" (i.e., treated as one "tunn

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

Hi Lucy, > -Original Message- > From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 11:48 AM > To: Templin, Fred L; Tom Herbert > Cc: stbry...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE? > > > > > Change the GUE header

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

Hi Tom, > -Original Message- > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 11:45 AM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: Lucy yong; stbry...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE? > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:2

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

> > 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 sepa

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Behcet Sarikaya > wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Behcet Sarikaya >>> wrote: Hi Tom, On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > Hi Tom, > >> -Original Message- >> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 10:13 AM >> To: Templin, Fred L >> Cc: Lucy yong; stbry...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Int-area

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Behcet Sarikaya >> wrote: >>> Hi Tom, >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Templin,

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Behcet Sarikaya > wrote: >> Hi Tom, >> >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Templin, Fred L >>> wrote: Hi Lucy, > -Original Message-

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

Hi Lucy, > -Original Message- > From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 11:15 AM > To: Templin, Fred L; Tom Herbert > Cc: stbry...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE? > > Hi Fred, > > Change the GU

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

Hi Fred, 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 separat

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

Hi Tom, > -Original Message- > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 10:13 AM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: Lucy yong; stbry...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE? > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:28

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > Hi Tom, > >> -Original Message- >> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:00 AM >> To: Templin, Fred L >> Cc: Lucy yong; stbry...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Int-area]

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Templin, Fred L >> wrote: >>> Hi Lucy, >>> -Original Message- From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com] Sent:

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

Hi Tom, > -Original Message- > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:00 AM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: Lucy yong; stbry...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE? > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:50

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

Hi Tom, On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Templin, Fred L > wrote: >> Hi Lucy, >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 7:48 AM >>> To: Templin, Fred L; stbry...@c

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > Hi Lucy, > >> -Original Message- >> From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 7:48 AM >> To: Templin, Fred L; stbry...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org >> Subject: RE: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

Hi Lucy, > -Original Message- > From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 7:48 AM > To: Templin, Fred L; stbry...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE? > > > Getting back to our earlier discussion, IP-

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

Getting back to our earlier discussion, IP-in-UDP and GUE are currently two half-solutions. Put them together and you get a whole solution. Keep them apart, and someone else is going to have to write a whole solution sometime down the line from now. [Lucy] GUE can support IP payload. Don't know

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

Hi Lucy, > -Original Message- > From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lucy yong > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 7:31 AM > To: stbry...@cisco.com; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE? > > > -Original Message- > From

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

-Original Message- From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 2:32 AM To: int-area@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE? I confess that I have only skimmed this thread, but as far as I can see no

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

Hi Stewart, > -Original Message- > From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 3:32 PM > To: int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE? > > I confess that I have only skimmed this thread,

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

I confess that I have only skimmed this thread, but as far as I can see no one has mentioned OAM. If we are designing a general purpose encapsulation there really needs to be an OAM indicator so that OAM can fate share with the data that it is monitoring. I don't think it is a factor in this disc