All three can’t interwork with VXLAN nor NVGRE. To interwork with them, an end point has to support multiple encaps and sync with peer what to use by configuration or control plane.
Lucy From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Reith, Lothar Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 4:45 PM To: Alia Atlas; Joe Touch Cc: Tom Herbert; Michael Smith (michsmit); [email protected]; Matthew Bocci; Paul Quinn; Dino Farinacci; Jesse Gross; Larry Kreeger Subject: Re: [nvo3] Consensus call on encap proposals Hi Alia, I fully support your approach. I am strongly in favor of moving forward with one standards track encap. May be it would be an approach to try and agree on a handful of criteria, such as extensibility, backwards compatibility with VXLAN and/or NVGRE, number of running code, ease of hardware implementation (evidenced by number of running hardware code), interoperability with VXLAN/NVGRE, Security, Cost in terms of protocol overhead, Cost in terms of scarce numbering resources, interoperability with legacy deployments in the field, support by deployed control planes, and yes: Simplicity (the opposite of complexity). Did I miss any important category? One could agree on the categories, agree on a process to rank the 3 candidate protocols – e.g. identify the best and the worst by the number and severity of objections in that category, the third is in the middle. The final rank would be average of the ranks per category. That one should be promoted to standards track. One could consider flipping a coin to decide the rank in a category – but only in a contentious situation between 2 of the 3 candidates. Lothar Von: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Alia Atlas Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juli 2016 22:05 An: Joe Touch <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Tom Herbert <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Michael Smith (michsmit) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Matthew Bocci <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Paul Quinn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Dino Farinacci <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Jesse Gross <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Larry Kreeger <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Betreff: Re: [nvo3] Consensus call on encap proposals On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Joe Touch <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 7/26/2016 12:42 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: ... The question is: (1) Should the WG move forward with one standards track encap? I've heard a lot of concern that we just can't do it, that it's too late, etc. I don't think it's ever "too late", but I also don't see consensus forming either. It may be that many folks are recovering from IETF and not responding yet. ... We can always flip a coin - if the solutions are technically equivalent and so is the support. That defines "random", not "consensus". It's not a preferred way - but it's a way of breaking a deadlock. Of course, the WG would have to have consensus on that being the decision process. Take a read through RFC 7282. I keep praising it because it gives really good perspectives. Joe
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
