Inline. -----Original Message----- From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 4:36 AM To: Surendra Kumar (smkumar) <[email protected]> Cc: Bottorff, Paul <[email protected]>; Lucy Yong <[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
I'm having problems parsing your text. But what I can say is that if NSH is to run over an overlay, then VXLAN can be colocated with an NSH hop, be the next hop, or be many hops away. If there is no overlay in the network, NSH doesn't need VXLAN. SK> fully agree, this is the point we have been trying to make as well! There is no reason to have this coupling. When does DNS use VXLAN? Answer: when there is an overlay in the network. When does DNS use MPLS? Answer: when packets traverse a core network with MPLS network. That doesn't mean DNS is spec'ed to run over VXLAN or MPLS. But DNS is transport independent. SK> It is spec'ed to work on IP/UDP, understood and makes sense. Surendra. Dino > On Nov 6, 2015, at 5:59 PM, Surendra Kumar (smkumar) <[email protected]> > 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
