Encapsulating IP in UDP
draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-06
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2018-01-09
|
|
Stream |
|
(None)
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
xml
pdf
html
bibtex
|
| Stream |
Stream state |
|
(No stream defined) |
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
RFC Editor Note |
|
(None)
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
I-D Exists
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
(None)
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
INTAREA Working Group X. Xu
Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track H. Assarpour
Expires: July 13, 2018 Broadcom
S. Ma
Juniper
Y. Lee
Comcast
Y. Fan
China Telecom
January 9, 2018
Encapsulating IP in UDP
draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-06
Abstract
Existing IP-in-IP encapsulation technologies are not adequate for
efficient load balancing of IP-in-IP traffic across IP networks.
This document specifies additional IP-in-IP encapsulation technology,
referred to as IP-in-UDP (User Datagram Protocol), which can
facilitate the load balancing of IP-in-IP traffic across IP networks.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 13, 2018.
Xu, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Encapsulating IP in UDP January 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Encapsulation in UDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Processing Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Congestion Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Applicability Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
To fully utilize the bandwidth available in IP networks and/or
facilitate recovery from a link or node failure, load balancing of
traffic over Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) and/or Link Aggregation
Group (LAG) across IP networks is widely used. [RFC5640] describes a
method for improving the load balancing efficiency in a network
carrying IP-in-IP traffic [RFC5565] over Layer Two Tunneling Protocol
- Version 3 (L2TPv3) [RFC3931] and Generic Routing Encapsulation
(GRE) [RFC2784] encapsulations. However, this method requires core
routers to perform hash calculation on the "load- balancing" field
contained in tunnel encapsulation headers (i.e., the Session ID field
in L2TPv3 headers or the Key field in GRE headers), which is not
widely supported by existing core routers.
Most existing routers in IP networks are already capable of
distributing IP traffic "microflows" [RFC2474] over ECMP paths and/or
Show full document text