Where Dino and I agree, and not to pick on Uri - I've seen the statement "additional headers/metadata" a few times now and it STILL sounds like "work around SFC", particularly in respect to the metadata part (since passing metadata was one of SFC's points).
If you want to tilt at that windmill, I don't think that binding the solution to a particular transport encap is the optimal way to do it (if you can avoid doing so). On 7/16/14 7:37 PM, "Elzur, Uri" <[email protected]> wrote: >VXLAN-gpe is as aligned to existing VXLAN as much as the existing RFC >provides guidance for. I.e. given the anticipated interpretations, with >proper scrutiny of what is allowed , VXLAN-gpe is attempting to allow for >best backwards interoperability on the existing UDP 4789 and offer best >prospects for carrying the additional headers/metadata. This leads to the >need for new UDP port for new formats > >Thx > >Uri ("Oo-Ree") >C: (949)-378-7568 > > >-----Original Message----- >From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lucy yong >Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:00 PM >To: Fabio Maino; Dino Farinacci >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [nvo3] Comments on >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-03 > >If GPE is the VXLAN evolution, why it request a new UDP port? If GPE is a >new protocol, why it has to align with VXLAN format? > >Lucy > >-----Original Message----- >From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Fabio Maino >Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 5:47 PM >To: Dino Farinacci >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [nvo3] Comments on >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-03 > >Dino, >GPE is not changing VXLAN nor LISP, as today's implementations cannot be >changed. GPE is proposing a converged extension of both protocols that >add some new features that, I believe, are needed. > >All of VXLAN features are supported in GPE. > >In the case of LISP, unfortunately, two features (nonce and >map-versioning) could not be accommodated in GPE. This is not very >different than any of today's LISP implementations that may decide to not >support those two features (for whatever reason: cost, complexity, use >cases addressed by the implementation... independently from GPE). > >What GPE is trying to do is to simplify next generation implementations >by keeping GPE as close as possible to the existing encapsulations, >adding on top of those. I maintain that an implementation supporting GPE, >LISP and VXLAN will be more cost effective than one that supports VXLAN, >LISP and a clean slate protocol, and may have better chances of being >deployed. > >Fabio > > >On 7/16/14, 1:05 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >> Well, if you want to really care about customers, creating all these >>variations is not doing justice to them. If you want less combinations, >>you keep VXLAN the way it is right now, with no changes. You keep LISP >>the way it is right now with no changes. You get L2 and L3 overlays with >>a unified pull control-plane in draft-maino-nv03-lisp-cp (preaching to >>the author ;-) or use BGP as an alternative push control-plane. >> >> As for NSH, you create a new header because it is completely new >>requirement and has not be deployed anywhere. Since it is brand new, you >>need new hardware and code to be developed to support it. So changing >>VXLAN and LISP to support NSH doesn't make sense because you inject >>change in 3 places rather than in 1 new place, creating more protocol >>machinery, complexity, and combinations that will frustrate customers >>(not to mention vendor call centers). >> >> Less entropy please, >> Dino >> >> On Jul 15, 2014, at 10:51 PM, Fabio Maino <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dino, >>> I believe that using a format that can share as much as possible with >>>the two protocols deployed today will give a better chance to GPE to be >>>implemented, as vendors may want a cost effective way to migrate to the >>>new protocol while preserving compatibility with legacy implementations. >>> >>> The fact that GPE provides a way to be extended, either with a shim >>>a-la NSH or making availabe more bits in the header for future >>>features, I think opens up to the addition of new features (explicit >>>service tagging, as an example) in a more organic way than trying to >>>use the few bits left in VXLAN or LISP. >>> >>> Unfortunately, in the LISP case, this comes to the expense of some >>>features that are in the current specification, but I believe those >>>same features can be mapped on a GPE+shim header, so a new >>>implementation would be able to provide the equivalent of those >>>features (e.g. nonce). >>> >>> It's hard to find the right balance between backward compatibility and >>>evolution of the encapsulation, but I believe GPE gets to a decent >>>compromise. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Fabio >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/15/14, 4:47 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>>>>> Hi VXLAN-gpe authors, >>>>>> >>>>>> Abstract: technically this is not extending a VXLAN but defines a >>>>>> new protocol that looks similar to VXLAN (demonstrated by need for >>>>>> new UDP port assignment). >>>>> We are trying to balance re-use of the VXLAN format and the need to >>>>>support existing non-GPE hardware that might already be deployed. We >>>>>looked at using the same port, and the new one, and decided, at this >>>>>point that a new port is easier for migration but since the packet >>>>>format is essentially VXLAN to keep the VXLAN name. >>>> Paul, this design seems to be going in circles. If a new port is >>>>used, why not make the new port for VXLAN mean layer-3 protocols >>>>follow? Or better yet, have a demux field after the VXLAN header so >>>>you don't have to use VXLAN header bits. Because the P-bit is using a >>>>precious bit in the VXLAN/LISP header and the nonce field that can be >>>>used for other things (we have history that shows a nonce in the >>>>header is a cheap form of obscure security). >>>> >>>> If you do this then you have no compatibility problems with initial >>>>VXLAN and LISP implementations. >>>> >>>> And, most importantly, there will be less confusion in the >>>>marketplace. >>>> >>>> Dino >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
