Lucy, inline
On 26/09/13 21:51, "Lucy yong" <[email protected]> wrote: >Dino, > >Current VXLAN format is much simpler format compared to LISP format. To >use it with LISP protocol, do you need to modify VXLAN format to support >LISP features? > >Regards, >Lucy > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lucy yong >Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 2:44 PM >To: 'Dino Farinacci'; Roger Jørgensen >Cc: Fabio Maino; [email protected]; Noel Chiappa; [email protected] >Subject: RE: [nvo3] [lisp] New Version Notification for >draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-00.txt > >Please see inline. > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >Dino Farinacci >Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 1:57 PM >To: Roger Jørgensen >Cc: Fabio Maino; [email protected]; Noel Chiappa; [email protected] >Subject: Re: [nvo3] [lisp] New Version Notification for >draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-00.txt > >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> >>wrote: >>>> Hi Noel, >>>> there's certainly no intention of keeping this out of the LISP WG, >>>>since this is not part of the charter we just thought an individual >>>>submission was more appropriate. >>>> >>>> We just started from the very practical consideration of the >>>>proliferation of encapsulations in the data center, and the lack of >>>>multiprotocol support in both VXLAN and LISP. >>> >>> Sorry I have to disagree. The protocols that LISP supports are *IP* >>>protocols and the protocols that VXLAN supports are *the rest* since it >>>is layer-2 solution. So this appears to be just rearranging the deck >>>chairs. >> >> This trouble me... why do we want to mix LISP and VXLAN? What is the >> gain in it? I only smell complexity. L2 in L3 over L3? > >We shouldn't but let the authors reply. If you want to carry more than IP >protocols in LISP, then you use the L2 UDP port and carry MAC addresses >in LISP. You can carry all of MAC, IPv4, and IPv6 EIDs with one >control-plane, the LISP mapping database using LISP-DDT. > >[Lucy] Agree. This is one way to implement L2 or L3 overlay by using LISP >protocol. However, Overlay virtual networks that use VXLAN encapsulation >may be implemented in other way too, e.g. SDN controller, not LISP >protocol. Therefore, there is a desire to extend VXLAN encapsulation to >support multiple protocols beside L2 only and make it a generic overlay >encapsulation schematics to support an overlay application. The NVO3 WG has a consensus (I believe) that the functions of mapping overlay addresses to underlay addresses (NVE to NVA, or NVE to NVE control plane), and the function that actually keeps that mapping information (NVA control plane) should be kept separate. In that way, an SDN northbound interface on the NVA solves that problem for you. More-over this allows one to choose its own NVE-to-NVA CP and NVE-NVE data plane/controlplane, while the SDN northbound model stays the same. > >BTW: IMO: using UDP port to indicate payload type is not elegant design, >but acceptable for history reason only. Why ? > >Lucy > >> How will a mix of LISP and VXLAN benefit the administrators of >> datacenters, end-users in the end? > >The VXLAN authors have to answer that. They came afterwards (by 5 years). > >Dino > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE >> [email protected] | - IPv6 is The Key! >> http://www.jorgensen.no | [email protected] >> >> (I really start to really dislike gmails new better editor) > >_______________________________________________ >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
