Hi Dino, Thanks for your detail comments. As for current VXLAN encapsulation, pls see my comments inline with [weiguo] below.
There is motivation to extend an encapsulation header (which is called VXLAN-GPE) so it can support, most importantly NSH. That change also gives VXLAN to support encapsulating layer-2 IPv4 and IPv6, which is duplicate functionality of LISP. But the headers are so similar, it really doens't matter. [weiguo]: Yes, an new encapsulation header should be extended to support NSH. But as for IPv4 and IPv6, i think current VXLAN already supported. For the layer 3 inter-subnet traffic from NVE1 to NVE2, inner destination MAC is the gateway interface MAC at NVE2. For the layer 2 intra-subnet traffic from NVE1 to NVE2, inner destination MAC is the destination TS's MAC. When NVE2 receives VXLAN encapsulated traffic from NVE1, inner destination MAC can be used to differentiate layer 2 traffic from layer 3 traffic. VXLAN distributed layer 3 gateway can be realized through the mechanism, NVE can forward both intra-subnet layer 2 traffic and inter-subnet layer 3 traffic at the same time. Thanks weiguo ________________________________________ 发件人: Dino Farinacci [[email protected]] 发送时间: 2014年7月28日 22:17 收件人: Haoweiguo 抄送: David Melman; [email protected]; LISP mailing list list; Tom Herbert 主题: Re: [nvo3] Comments on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-03 > Hi Dino, > Sorry, i misunderstood you. I think VXLAN-GPE can define a new UDP port and a > new data format, P bit No worries. > in VXLAN-GPE seems to have no any value. As for basic inter-subnet layer 3 > communication and intra-subnet layer 2 communication between NVEs, current > NVGRE, VXLAN and LISP have already supported, VXLAN supports L2 overlays since its goal is to extend subnets. LISP supports L3 overlays so it assumes subnets are local (to the xTR) just like in a routed network. NVGRE can be a combo. > NVGRE,VXLAN,LISP and VXLAN-GPE can be hybrid used to form a NVO3 network if > only basic layer 3 and There is motivation to extend an encapsulation header (which is called VXLAN-GPE) so it can support, most importantly NSH. That change also gives VXLAN to support encapsulating layer-2 IPv4 and IPv6, which is duplicate functionality of LISP. But the headers are so similar, it really doens't matter. However, the P-bit is not needed for anything new in LISP and the OAM-bit is not needed in LISP since LISP has different UDP port number (4342) for control-packets. VXLAN does not have a well defined control protocol so the data-plane has to escape out control-plane pakcets where the first one is this new OAM message. > layer 2 forwarding process exists. As for some extra functions of OAM, > service chaining,and etc, only VXLAN-GPE can support, pure VXLAN-GPE network > should be used in these cases. > Thanks > weiguo Right, agree. Dino > > > ________________________________________ > 发件人: Dino Farinacci [[email protected]] > 发送时间: 2014年7月28日 21:15 > 收件人: Haoweiguo > 抄送: Tom Herbert; David Melman; [email protected]; LISP mailing list list > 主题: Re: 答复: [nvo3] Comments on > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-03 > >> On Jul 28, 2014, at 7:24 AM, Haoweiguo <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> About backward compatibility, i also agree with Dino. VXLAN-GPE should focus >> on the VXLAN-GPE header and requires the assignment of a new UDP port, the >> data format don't need consider backward compatibility with VXLAN header. I > > I want to make it clear that supporting backward compatibility is very > important since VXLAN-port-4789 is supported in various chips already. > > Dino _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
