Move from udp-overlay to ip-overlay

[kormat]

Right now we're using this stack to send data in SCION:

   app protocol
-----------------
   scion
-----------------
   udp
-----------------
   ip

This is fine for the short-to-medium term, but for real-world rollout, we should be moving to:

   app protocol
-----------------
   scion
-----------------
   ip

[perrig]

Right, we should indeed move away from UDP if possible. Ideally, we would
have SCION directly on Ethernet, such that there is no routable IP packet
-- in order to obtain the property that traffic could not possibly leave a
domain even if part of the network is misconfigured.

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Stephen Shirley notifications@github.com
wrote:

Right now we're using this stack to send data in SCION:

app protocol

scion

udp

ip

This is fine for the short-to-medium term, but for real-world rollout, we
should be moving to:

app protocol

scion

ip

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/netsec-ethz/scion/issues/300.

[pszal]

In general I agree, and only comment that IP | UDP | SCION is a necessity of overlay-based deployment.

[kormat]

From meeting: lets add new address type, 16bits, for scion services.

[kormat]

#327 adds the new service address type.

[kormat]

With #388 committed, the hard work for this should mostly be in place.

[scrye]

Now that overlays (underlays, in the new terminology) are decoupled from the SCION layer, we can defer implementing an IP-only underlay until an AS needs it. Until then, IP/UDP underlays will have to suffice.