On 26/07/16 22:52, Lucy yong wrote:
/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./
I would not call that interworking.
For me (and I have written more than one paravirtual vNIC driver) means
that a driver for encaps A can parse and produce frames in encaps B
solely by means of configuration.
The interworking between these three from a technical point of view is
EXACTLY ZERO.
A.
//
//
/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
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
