Unfortunately, the lack of a protocol type field within the VXLAN header limits its extensibility greatly.
Best regards, Xiaohu > -----Original Message----- > From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Azhar Sayeed > Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 11:21 AM > To: Dino Farinacci > Cc: Anoop Ghanwani; Tom Herbert; [email protected]; Lucy yong; Lizhong Jin; Bocci, > Matthew (Nokia - GB); Jesse Gross > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Mail regarding NVO3 data plane drafts > > +1 for VXLAN - enough work in performance enhancements being done > > Azhar > > > > On Jul 14, 2016, at 10:30 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 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
