It has been more than 4 years since the start of NVO3, and since we have adopted 3 dataplane drafts, option #1 seems the only way we could go now.
Lizhong > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jesse Gross <[email protected]> > To: Lucy yong <[email protected]>, Anoop Ghanwani < > [email protected]>, Tom Herbert <[email protected]> > Cc: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" <[email protected]>, NVO3 < > [email protected]> > Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 20:26:32 +0000 > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Mail regarding NVO3 data plane drafts > > I agree as well. We’ve had this question outstanding for the past couple > years and haven’t had much luck on picking/merging. Given the timing, I > think it’s effectively impossible to do so now. It seems like #1 is the > pragmatic choice. > > > > On 7/14/16, 1:00 PM, "nvo3 on behalf of Lucy yong" <[email protected] > on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > > > *Agree with Anoop’s analogy.* > > > > *Lucy* > > > > *From:* nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Anoop Ghanwani > *Sent:* Thursday, July 14, 2016 12:46 PM > *To:* Tom Herbert > *Cc:* Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB); NVO3 > *Subject:* Re: [nvo3] Mail regarding NVO3 data plane drafts > > > > #2 is going to be nearly impossible (or it would have happened earlier, > and if it were possible, why would we even bother publishing the other > two?), so that makes it an easy choice. > > > > Anoop > > > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Tom Herbert <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > WG, > > > > The NVO3 working group has adopted three data plane encapsulations: > > - VXLAN-GPE, > > - Geneve, > > - GUE (although the draft is moving to the Intarea WG, we > anticipate that NVO3 will still reference this). > > > > We have discussed this situation with Alia and we feel that there is > little benefit to the community in publishing all three as standards track > RFCs. > > > > We would note that the discussion on the drafts has been relatively > light since their adoption. There has not been serious discussion about > their relative pros/cons (if any), or about the actual usefulness of their > extensibility or differentiators. > > > > This leaves two options: > > > > 1) Publish all of them as informational or experimental, potentially > moving one of them to standards track in the future based on > implementation/deployment. > > 2) Pick one now based on technical and/or implementation/deployment > criteria. > > > > I would like to propose a third option. Create a design team in nvo3 > to come up with the goal of proposing one data plane protocol that > consolidates the best features of the three. Outside of extensibility > there is fundamentally little difference amongst these, and the > different models of extensibility (flag-fields, TLVs, NSH) could be > fit into one protocol. Also, the encapsulation design considerations > (draft-ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap-01) provides a good reference for creating > such an encapsulation protocol. > > Thanks, > Tom > > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > > > >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
