On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Pankaj Garg <garg.pan...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > > > As discussed in the NVO3 forum in the past, we intend to take NVGRE to > informational RFC status. This would ensure that there is a stable way to > build compliant and interoperable NVGRE implementation. It would also allow > extensions to NVGRE to be able to refer to a stable document version as > opposed to rolling revisions, thus removing the risk of introducing > incompatibilities and interoperability issues later on. We are seeking (and > would highly appreciate) editorial feedback from NVO3 fellows. Could you > please review the latest draft of NVGRE (below) and provide us any editorial > feedback on the latest NVGRE draft by 11th August? > Hi Pankaj,
Per the draft: o The C (Checksum Present) and S (Sequence Number Present) bits in the GRE header MUST be zero. This explicitly disallows use of GRE checksum and hence there is no end to L3 mechanism defined within the protocol to check against corruption of the nvgre header. As I mentioned before on this list, I am particularly concerned about the vulnerability of the VSID. I suspect the intention is that nvgre should only be deployed in situations where the under lying networks provide error detection along the whole path (links and in switches). In any case, I would suggest there should be some discussion of this in the draft. Thanks, Tom > > > Thanks > > Pankaj (on behalf of NVGRE co-authors) > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > nvo3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
