And industry deployed VXLAN cannot interoperate at the control-plane. Dino
> On Jul 14, 2016, at 7:15 PM, Lizhong Jin <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
