From Us to You Mr User Love the IETF > On Jul 14, 2016, at 7:30 PM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
