Regarding Joe Touch's comment about explicitly NOT indicating IPv4 vs IPv6 in the Next Protocol (only indicating IP), I don't see what the advantages of doing this are. It seems more philosophical.
By indicating IPv4/IPv6 in the next protocol, it allows implementations to only make one decision before parsing the IP header. By doing two steps NP->IP->IPv4/v6, it adds one more parsing step to the implementation, for no gain that I can think of. As Diego pointed out earlier, there is already a precedent in Ethernet for indicating the IP version in the next protocol from the layer below it. - Larry On 4/29/15 11:36 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <[email protected]> wrote: >On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Paul Quinn (paulq) <[email protected]> >wrote: >> >>> On Apr 29, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> >>>wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Behcet Sarikaya >>><[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Hi Benson, >>>> >>>> Joe Touch wrote this on intarea list: >>>> >>>> There is no reason for having the GUE header differentiate between >>>> payload=IPv4 and payload=IPv6. The IP version is addressed by the >>>> version field of the IP header. If GUE encapsulates both type of IP >>>>the >>>> same way (and it should), it should NOT differentiate between them in >>>> its (GUE) header. >>>> >>>> >>>> I think the same applies to gpe header. >>>> >>>> Plus the issues on the "NSH" protocol. >>> >>> Curiously if you look at the nsh draft, Section 3.2, >>> >>> NSH Base Header >>> >>> also has a next protocol field with the same encoding. >>> >>> Anybody understands what is going on? >> >> Yes, the concept is that you don't know what you want to carry via GPE. >> Today it might be v4, v6, ethernet, NSH or something else. Tomorrow, >>who knows? But more importantly, we need to enable that stacking to >>occur. >> > > >Please convince not me but Joe Touch on v4 and v6 thing. > >> The format of NSH is orthogonal -- as is the format of Ethernet for >>that matter. From an outer header (i.e. VXLAN-GPE or other) you need to >>be able to identify the inner protocol. >> > >Are we talking about VM-to-VM communication? I think that is what >VXLAN was designed for. > >Regards, > >Behcet >> Paul >> _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
