On 3/30/15 1:16 PM, Lucy yong wrote:
Hi Eric,
Here is my thought.
Congestion considerations, Header Protection, Entropy, MTU and Fragmentation,
and QoS are specific for an encapsulation for tunneling.
Next-protocol, OAM, extensibility, Security, layering, and middle-box are
applied to both types of encapsulations.
Service model may only apply to the encapsulation for a service.
Lucy,
I'm not sure I have a crisp definition of a "service" vs. "tunneling".
But looking at your examples I think there are less differences than you
claim.
For instance, if a "service" adds a header of some sort it needs to
consider the MTU/frag implications of that header. And it needs to
consider whether it needs to protect the header against bit errors (that
are undetected by the link layer).
Furthermore, if the "service" can be applied to non-congestion
controlled traffic, e.g., arbitrary Ethernet payload, then congestion
needs to be considered.
So if we keep in mind that these are considerations and not
requirements, then I don't think we need to try to find some way to
separate them out. Upon considering something for e.g., SFC, it might
turn out that no action is needed.
Thanks,
Erik
Regards,
Lucy
-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 12:32 AM
To: Lucy yong; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Encapsulation considerations
On 3/25/15 2:23 PM, Lucy yong wrote:
Here is a suggestion to the draft.
There are two distinct encapsulation purposes.
1) an encapsulation for tunneling purpose, i.e. transport related
encapsulation, e.g. nvo3.
2) an encapsulation for a service, i.e. transport independent encapsulation,
e.g. sfc.
Considerations for two types of encapsulations have difference. It is good for
the draft to point out that and give separate considerations.
Lucy,
which considerations in the draft are different for the two types you suggest?
Thanks,
Erik
Thanks,
Lucy
-----Original Message-----
From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Erik Nordmark
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 4:01 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [nvo3] Encapsulation considerations
I presented part of this at the most recent NVO3 interim meeting.The full 12
areas of considerations where presented at RTGWG earlier this week.
The draft is
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rtg-dt-encap/
and the slides are at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-rtgwg-8.pdf
There is probably additional things in there to consider for NVO3, and advice
that can be reused to make it easier to move NVO3 forward.
Regards,
Erik
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
