On 5/4/2015 6:19 PM, William Caban wrote: > Here is a question or request to see if it makes sense. (Not sure if > this is the right forum) > > With the Next Protocol values stated in the draft: > > This draft defines the following Next Protocol values: > > 0x1 : IPv4 > > 0x2 : IPv6
The above is a mistake, IMO. One ID should indicate "IP". The rest should be decided within the IP header. Let's not have to revisit this WHEN (not if) there's another IP. Joe > > 0x3 : Ethernet > > 0x4 : Network Service Header [NSH > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00#ref-NSH>] > > > Understanding the rapid evolution of overlay networks and the need to support > future research in networking fields. What about including a "RAW" or "TEST" > next protocol which network researchers and academia can use to develop > future protocols over an overlay network without having to modify the overlay > transport. Such extension could also be used for application vendors with > unique protocol requirement for "raw" communication between end points in an > overlay network. > > > -William > > On May 4, 2015, at 20:20, Jeff Tantsura <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> That¹s why we have been using entropy labels, ingress node has the best >> understanding of the context. >> >> Cheers, >> Jeff >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joe Touch <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Date: Monday, May 4, 2015 at 4:51 PM >> To: Ian Cox <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, >> "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, >> "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Subject: Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00.txt >> >>> >>> >>> On 5/4/2015 4:41 PM, Ian Cox wrote: >>>> I'll provide a reason why providing intentional indication for next >>>> layer is better than essentially guessing it. Using MPLS as an example. >>>> MPLS has no indication in the label stack for intermediate nodes what >>>> the underlying payload is. To achieve better load balancing of MPLS >>>> traffic most hardware today looks to see if the first nibble is 4 or 6 >>>> then parse into the payload under the belief that it is a IPv4 or v6 >>>> packet. The 4 or 6 guess for the underlying MPLS payload being an IP >>>> packet was fine until IEEE allocated MAC addresses starting with 6. >>>> Unintended results occur when you parse MAC addresses as IP addresses >>>> and feed than into the ECMP calculation. >>> >>> That sounds like a great reason to indicate "IP", but insufficient >>> reason to indicate IPv4 vs IPv6. >>> >>> Joe >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ian >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya >>>> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 2:02 PM >>>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00.txt >>>> >>>> Hi VXLAN-gpe authors, >>>> >>>> After reading many times and discussions with one of the 12 coauthors :) >>>> I think I now understand better this draft. >>>> >>>> The source of misunderstanding was the lack of problem statement. My >>>> suggestion is to clearly define what this draft is intended to solve. >>>> >>>> Due to the fact that VXLAN is mentioned so much and Section is almost >>>> copied from RFC 7248 causes a lot of confusion. >>>> >>>> What I understand is that this draft is addressing is non Layer 2 data >>>> center networks. VXLAN addresses Layer 2 data center networks and >>>> always assumes Ethernet frames in the payload. >>>> Virtual machines always generate Layer 2 frames. VXLAN addresses >>>> VM-to-VM communication. >>>> >>>> In general not all data center networks are Layer based, i.e. some are >>>> Layer 3 based and there are no VMs that's why VXLAN-GPE does not talk >>>> about VMs. >>>> >>>> I suggest that this point be clarified in the draft. >>>> >>>> Given the above, my suggestion is to remove Ethernet from the list of >>>> encapsulations and leave it to VXLAN. >>>> >>>> Given the above, I think that next protocol field is not needed. >>>> Version of IP is in the very first field in IP header. But maybe you >>>> can convince me? >>>> >>>> If VXLAN-gpe is UDP encapsulation of IP packets than it should be >>>> discussed in intarea list, just like GUE which is being discussed. >>>> Already Xiaohu suggested this on intarea list. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Behcet >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 8:01 PM, <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>>>> directories. >>>>> This draft is a work item of the Network Virtualization Overlays >>>>> Working Group of the IETF. >>>>> >>>>> Title : Generic Protocol Extension for VXLAN >>>>> Authors : Paul Quinn >>>>> Rajeev Manur >>>>> Larry Kreeger >>>>> Darrel Lewis >>>>> Fabio Maino >>>>> Michael Smith >>>>> Puneet Agarwal >>>>> Lucy Yong >>>>> Xiaohu Xu >>>>> Uri Elzur >>>>> Pankaj Garg >>>>> David Melman >>>>> Filename : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00.txt >>>>> Pages : 22 >>>>> Date : 2015-05-01 >>>>> >>>>> Abstract: >>>>> This draft describes extending Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network >>>>> (VXLAN), via changes to the VXLAN header, with three new >>>>> capabilities: support for multi-protocol encapsulation, operations, >>>>> administration and management (OAM) signaling and explicit >>>>> versioning. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe/ >>>>> >>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at: >>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >>>>> submission >>>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org >>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org>. >>>>> >>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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] <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] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
