I am having trouble understanding the conversation.
We have a clear agreement that we are not going to standardize on
transport for NSH.
And even more that we are not going to pick "one".
So yes, this draft describes a valid and useful way to transport NSH.
there are many such.
Yours,
Joel
On 11/6/15 3:59 AM, Surendra Kumar (smkumar) wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
