Hi, With my design experience of NIC and Switch, I prefer VXLAN-GPE. I have the same concern of HW complicated logic from Fabio, and additional concern to GENEVE and GUE is its long size of header. 1. GENEVE: 256+8=262Bytes 2. GUE: 128+4=132Bytes In many current switch and NIC design, the parser buffer size is still 128Bytes, and some NIC/DMA has 256Bytes buffer. This is workable because: 1. IPv4 options is not widely used. 2. IPv6 extension header only support with limited number. But if adding GENEVE/GUE header, the minimum size of buffer is 256Bytes, or even 512Bytes. Then the question is, does the hardware need to process these Variable Length Options/Optional Fields/Private Data. If not, then it is not reasonable to force the hardware to increase the cost, but gain little.
Lizhong > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Alia Atlas <[email protected]> > To: NVO3 <[email protected]> > Cc: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 11:13:00 -0400 > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Consensus call on encap proposals > I'd like to have people focus on the key point of this thread. > > Are there serious technical objections (and specifically what are they) to > moving forward with VXLAN-GPE as the standards-track protocol? > > Are there serious technical objections (and specifically what are they) to > moving forward with GENEVE as the standards-track protocol? > > Are there serious technical objections (and specifically what are they) to > moving forward with GUE as the standards-track protocol? > > We need to capture any relevant objections. So far, there's been some > discussion on extensibility - with Tom Herbert providing concrete concerns. > > I have concluded that almost all the authors would prefer to have no > standards track solution if they can't guarantee that theirs is that > standard. > > I do hear concerns about whether a decision will be too late. I think > that a decision can only be helpful. It goes back to when is the best > time to plant a tree - with the answer of 20 years ago or now. > > Regards, > Alia > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Naoki Matsuhira <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> >> >> On 2016/07/21 23:56, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) wrote: >> >>> WG >>> >>> There was a discussion in the NVO3 WG meeting in Berlin following strong >>> advice from our Area Director that we need to come to a consensus on >>> converging on a common encapsulation. Two sets of questions were asked: >>> (1) Should the WG move forward with one standards track encap? >>> (2) For a given encap, do you have significant technical objections? >>> >> >> I want to inform to this mailing list that I proposed ME6E-FP and ME6E-PR >> at the yokohama meeting. I also have proposal M46E-FP and M46E-PR (past >> called SA46T). >> >> These encapsulation technologies are based on address mapping. ME6E use >> IPv6 address which mapping MAC address, and M46E use IPv6 address which >> mapping IPv4 address. >> >> I understand too many encapsulation technologies, however these my >> proposal are simple, and may contribute to the Internet. >> >> I believe address mapping approach is unique, so I want to propose again. >> >> sorry not the answer to the question. >> >> Naoki Matsuhira >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nvo3 mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >> > > >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
