Agree it would run everywhere if NSH is treated as an *application*, as you point out.
The conflict is in how NSH wants to be transport independent. It is supposed to be a feature than violation of layering: proper layering vs. overhead, as shown below. IP-strata | IP | UDP | NSH | IP-strata | IP | UDP | VXLAN-GPE | IP | UDP | NSH | Ignoring, other encapsulation of NSH, carrying NSH directly over UDP does maintain that layering while removing the overhead. This draft is doing the right thing. Surendra. -----Original Message----- From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 4:21 PM To: Bottorff, Paul <[email protected]> Cc: Lucy Yong <[email protected]>; Surendra Kumar (smkumar) <[email protected]>; Alia Atlas <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Larry Kreeger (kreeger) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; <[email protected]> <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [sfc] comment on draft-kumar-sfc-nsh-udp-transport As I mentioned at the mic, if NSH runs over UDP/IP, then it can run over anything. And then every encapsulation spec doesn't need to special case NSH. Like the analogy I used at the mic . why doest't VXLAN-GPE have a code point for DNS? ;-) Answer: it makes no sense. Run NSH as a transport layer client and it will work over everything we have already built and has a good chance to work over anything we will build. NSH is no more an overlay than SMTP is for email. Dino > On Nov 5, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Bottorff, Paul <[email protected]> wrote: > > It is definitely a useful option to run directly over Ethernet to allow for > small scale environments which don't need NVO3 overlays. > > Cheers, > > Paul > > From: sfc [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lucy yong > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 5:08 AM > To: Surendra Kumar (smkumar); Alia Atlas > Cc: [email protected]; Larry Kreeger (kreeger); [email protected] > Subject: Re: [sfc] comment on draft-kumar-sfc-nsh-udp-transport > > If SFC is deployed in Ethernet network, do we need NSH over Ethernet? > > Lucy > > From: Surendra Kumar (smkumar) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 4:12 AM > To: Alia Atlas; Lucy yong > Cc: [email protected]; Larry Kreeger (kreeger); [email protected] > Subject: RE: [sfc] comment on draft-kumar-sfc-nsh-udp-transport > > I did go through the process of getting the ethertype for NSH and I also have > obtained a UDP port# in the past. I have to agree with Alia. > > Lucy, > I appreciate you guys taking a crack at NSH over GRE over UDP nested > encapsulation. It simply calls for unnecessary overhead and complexity in > formulating and processing such a packet along the tunnel path. > > I admit i have not read your draft yet, will certainly do. > > Regard, > Surendra. > > > > Sent from a thumb typed device. > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Alia Atlas <[email protected]> > Date: 2015/11/05 6:18 PM (GMT+09:00) > To: Lucy yong <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected], "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <[email protected]>, > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [sfc] comment on draft-kumar-sfc-nsh-udp-transport > > <no-hats> > I think that getting a UDP port is a lot more straightforward than an > Ethertype. > Not having extra bytes is also an advantage. > > Regards, > Alia > </no-hats> > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Lucy yong <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Larry, > > The benefit is to avoid working a UDP transport for NSH. > > Thanks, > Lucy > > -----Original Message----- > From: sfc [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Larry Kreeger (kreeger) > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 1:45 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [sfc] comment on draft-kumar-sfc-nsh-udp-transport > > Hi Behcet, > > I¹m not sure I¹m following what your point is. It is true that VXLAN-GPE > also adds additional overhead which may not always be needed. Carrying NSH > directly over UDP avoids that as well. Lucy brought up a new option that I > had never heard suggested before, which was to carry NSH in GRE over UDP. > This adds a GRE header in between the UDP header and NSH, but in my opinion > doesn¹t bring any benefits - just more overhead and complication. > > Thanks, Larry > > On 11/5/15, 4:32 PM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Larry Kreeger (kreeger) > ><[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Lucy, > >> > >> One of the motivations for carrying NSH directly on UDP is to avoid > >>unnecessary overhead or complication. Adding the GRE header in > >>between does not seem to add any additional benefit that I can see > >>only additional overhead. > >> > > > >The point was not with VXLAN-GPE. > > > >Behcet > >> Thanks, Larry > >> > >> From: sfc <[email protected]> on behalf of Lucy yong > >> <[email protected]> > >> Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 11:59 PM > >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > >> Subject: [sfc] comment on draft-kumar-sfc-nsh-udp-transport > >> > >> There is a gre/udp tunnel transport (draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-08) > >>that nsh can use for the transport; just need to register an > >>Ethertype for nsh. > >> The gre/udp transport provides all features nsh needs with additional > >>security capability. > >> > >> > >> > >> Lucy > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> sfc mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc > >> > > _______________________________________________ > sfc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc > > _______________________________________________ > sfc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc > > _______________________________________________ > sfc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
