On 7/21/2016 3:57 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: > >> Port numbers are assigned for entire services, not for each component >> nor for each version of a protocol anymore (see the two docs of BCP > GUE is a different service than Geneve. They both have different ports, do > they not? Yes, those are completely different.
> This was our premise with LISP. That if we needed to have a version 2, get a > new UDP port number rather than carry a version number in every packet for > really no good reason. That won't happen, as per BCP 165. You're expected to support versioning inside your protocol, not by consuming the port number space. > People said you shouldn’t do that. That we can’t allocate ports willy nilly. > Fast forward 8 years. We have new UDP port allocations for VXLAN, VXLAN-GPE, > GUE, and Geneve. And you know there are more. Sure - for whole-cloth new services. Applications for incremental updates or multiple ports for components of a service are routinely rejected. > >> 165). So at best you're just saying that the entire header is redefined >> for each version number in the header (which admittedly is just a >> two-step check - port and version - rather than a one-step of just port). > Yep. But not version. Your port number is your version number. Absolutely not. Again, see BCP 165. A port number defines a service, not a version thereof. ... > How long has it been since we created the IPv6 header, and vendors > still do not know what to do with the flow field. Until it is - which is happening as we speak to reduce reordering in multipath routing. We don't deploy new IP protocols every 3 years, but every few years a new feature becomes more widely supported. That's the point of extensible protocols - to change gradually and incrementally. Joe _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
