Hi Anoop, I agree with Larry. The encapsulation for NVO3 includes the VXLAN header and the outer header (UDP/IP). VXLAN, UDP and IP headers together determine a tunnel between two VTEPs. Thus NVO3 encapsulation is transport related.
NVO3 is the technology that uses tunneling for virtual network transport. Thanks, Lucy From: Larry Kreeger (kreeger) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:53 PM To: Anoop Ghanwani; Lucy yong Cc: Erik Nordmark; [email protected] Subject: Re: [nvo3] Encapsulation considerations Hi Anoop, IMO, the "encapsulation" includes both the VXLAN header and the UDP header and even the outer IP header. Basically, everything that is added on the the original packet to delivery it from one VTEP to another. Using VXLAN with MPLS instead of UDP/IP makes no sense to me, but maybe I lack imagination :-) - Larry From: Anoop Ghanwani <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 5:05 PM To: Lucy yong <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Erik Nordmark <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] Encapsulation considerations I'm having trouble separating encapsulations into the categories mentioned. When we talk about an encapsulation for NVO3 does it include the VXLAN header only, or does it include the UDP header as well? Am I allowed to use the VXLAN header on an MPLS tunnel? I'm not proposing we do this, just trying to see if there is a better way to communicate this separation. Anoop On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Lucy yong <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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. Regards, Lucy -----Original Message----- From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 12:32 AM To: Lucy yong; [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>] On > Behalf Of Erik Nordmark > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 4:01 PM > To: [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
