But not talking about one assures there will never be one.

Dino

> On Oct 30, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Fedyk, Don <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> +1  Although the dream to have "One Encap to Unite them all"  may not be 
> achievable within this Realm :-)
> 
> Don 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dino Farinacci
>> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 3:05 AM
>> To: Pankaj Garg
>> Cc: Tom Herbert; [email protected]; Manish Kumar (manishkr); Lucy Yong
>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using
>> Generic Routing Encapsulation
>> 
>> Pankaj, you have shown precisely the point I have been hounding this
>> mailing list. There are just way too many combinations of encapsulation
>> solutions with little or no *real* incremental benefit.
>> 
>> Enough with the data-planes. Once they are implemented and people stop
>> the urge to keep changing something so basic, we can get on with what really
>> matters in building data center overlay networks. That is the control-plane.
>> That will require a lot more thought, experimentation, experience, and
>> deployment.
>> 
>> Dino
>> 
>>> On Oct 29, 2015, at 12:10 PM, Pankaj Garg <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> NVGRE and VXLAN
>>> NVGRE is widely used in datacenter networks and there is wide hardware
>> support available for it (both in terms of NICs and Switches). The key
>> advantage VXLAN has over NVGRE is that it allows larger entropy and doesn't
>> require any change in middle boxes to calculate hash and do ECMP. Most
>> network virtualization solutions are supporting both of these today. Even
>> though in long term, things may settle on a single encap format, that is not
>> practically possible in the short term. In my opinion, both NVGRE and VXLAN
>> are here to stay for quite a while given the investment and usage of these
>> technologies. Could we have settled on just one? Yes, we could have, but I
>> am not sure either of these would be the one (read further).
>>> 
>>> Shortcomings:
>>> Around maybe 2-3 years back, we identified that both of these encap have
>> one severe limitation (well VXLAN had two) i.e. ability (or lack thereof) to
>> extend them. In addition, VXLAN even did not allow encap of non-ethernet
>> inner packet. The main problem for network virtualization, however was
>> extensibility. There are a lot of use cases where such extensibility can add
>> significant advantage to encapsulation. It seems other people were thinking
>> of the same at the same time. This resulted in 3 encap options for "future"
>> encap. VXLAN-GPE + NSH, Geneve and GUE.
>>> 
>>> VXLAN-GPE + NSH, Geneve and GUE
>>> Out of the three, I personally prefer the first two, partly because I have
>> been deeply involved in the extensibility design of these but more
>> importantly I feel they offer advantage over GUE. VXLAN-GPE + NSH seems
>> to be the most flexible of the present options as it allows extensibility in
>> hardware and software friendly manner. When we think about extensibility,
>> there is always struggle between hardware and software. While software
>> can evolve much faster, hardware cannot and we have to design something
>> that does not restrict software to innovate but eventually let hardware catch
>> up and use those innovations as well.
>>> 
>>> A key limitation that prevents software from using extensions is NIC
>> offloads. Both Geneve and VXLAN-GPE+NSH allows extension of these
>> protocols without breaking NIC offloads. This is a huge advantage given that
>> in a network virtualization environment, typically most endpoints are
>> software. This allows software vendors to do faster innovation without
>> worrying about the whole ecosystem aspects of it. Both Geneve and NSH
>> provide this extensibility using TLV format and they both use exact same TLV
>> format (by choice).
>>> 
>>> However, not all endpoints can be software and eventually for some of
>> those innovations (such as security or OAM etc.) it would be required (or
>> useful) to have hardware participate. The key limitation of TLV format (that 
>> I
>> have heard of) is that it is harder to parse in hardware at line rate. This 
>> is
>> where I think NSH has an advantage. NSH allows us to define new MDType
>> so that we can create fixed format headers (that are easier for hardware to
>> parse than TLV). This allows faster innovation in software (using vendor
>> specific TLV) and later on they can be converted into hardware friendly
>> format using MDType.
>>> 
>>> GRE-in-UDP
>>> I am not really sure where this fits in for network virtualization. It does 
>>> not
>> have required ecosystem support to be a viable option and does not solve
>> the need for future encapsulations.
>>> 
>>> PS: I really hope that we (nvo3 group) picks up one option out of the three
>> "future" encap as the standard option to avoid unnecessary fragmentation
>> and engineering overhead.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Pankaj
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 10:11 AM
>>>> To: Manish Kumar (manishkr) <[email protected]>
>>>> Cc: Tom Herbert <[email protected]>; Lucy Yong
>>>> <[email protected]>; Pankaj Garg <[email protected]>;
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using
>>>> Generic Routing Encapsulation
>>>> 
>>>> You should ask the proponents of NVGRE, if they still have an
>>>> investment in NVGRe. From what I hear, through the grapevine, those
>>>> proponents use VXLAN to deliver services.
>>>> 
>>>> So with all due respect to the NVGRE advocates, would they object
>>>> dropping NVGRE support from the nvo3 charter?
>>>> 
>>>> Practically speaking,
>>>> Dino
>>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 28, 2015, at 1:42 AM, Manish Kumar (manishkr)
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Any specific reason that we want to distinguish NVGRE from other
>>>>> usages of GRE (except for the usage of last 8 bits for entropy). In
>>>>> fact, given that the meaning of key was relatively open, many
>>>>> implementations have optionally used the last 8 bits of the key for
>>>>> entropy even before NVGRE (DC usage) came into picture (with both
>>>>> ends
>>>> of the tunnel in agreement).
>>>>> If needed, we could use one of the reserved bits at the beginning of
>>>>> the header to indicate such usage.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Alternatively, GRE over UDP gives all that we need. To be honest, I
>>>>> still fail to find a reason of why we really needed VXLAN and VXLAN
>>>>> GPE(now) given that GRE has already existed for so long (as well as
>>>>> some implementations of GRE over UDP) - this is new learning (in
>>>>> terms of new encap, new numbers, etc, etc!) and a lot of extra work
>>>>> for implementors and users alike! Just carrying GRE over UDP (could
>>>>> be thought of as a nested encap) along with using a few reserved
>>>>> bits (for OAM, etc) seems to me to give all that we’ll get after a
>>>>> long arduous journey to VXLAN GPE through VXLAN! May be my
>> personal
>>>> opinion
>>>>> but I haven’t seen anything otherwise yet.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Manish
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 06/10/15 10:15 pm, "Tom Herbert" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Lucy yong <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Manish,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I agree with you.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> GRE/UDP encapsulation protocol can apply to the Internet and a
>>>>>>> well-managed operator network. NVGRE is adapted from GRE and
>> made
>>>>>>> specific for Ethernet/IP payload. We should not make them as two
>>>>>>> distinct encap. protocols for this space. NVGRE can be benefit
>>>>>>> from GRE/UDP for flow entropy and UDP checksum in IPv6; thus
>>>>>>> should be considered as optional to use.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I you might still need to define NVGRE/UDP separately. In
>>>>>> particular, I wonder if NVGRE/UDP necessitate port number? AFAIK
>>>>>> there is no way to distinguish NVGRE from other uses of GRE, a
>>>>>> different UDP port number could allow that.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Lucy
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Manish
>>>>>>> Kumar
>>>>>>> (manishkr)
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 1:02 AM
>>>>>>> To: Pankaj Garg; Tom Herbert
>>>>>>> Cc: [email protected]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization
>>>>>>> Using Generic Routing Encapsulation
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Tom, Pankaj,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The usage of the UDP header in such encapsulations is mostly for
>>>>>>> entropy (load-balancing), aid NAT traversal, etc. This indirectly
>>>>>>> makes the transport believe that the packet is a regular IP packet
>>>>>>> (with L4 header following the IP header) rather than a tunnelled
>>>>>>> IP packet(some systems/functionalities always assumed this). In
>>>>>>> this context, it makes sense to stamp he UDP header only on the
>>>>>>> outer most encap, the ones added on the inner encaps don¹t add
>> much value.
>>>>>>> Hence, I¹m of the view that the UDP header be dissociated with
>>>>>>> individual encaps and just stamped after the outer most encap when
>>>>>>> needed - the destination UDP port, as usual, identifies the encap
>>>>>>> protocol. Given that GRE is, by far, the most commonly used
>>>>>>> general purpose encap deployed today, it may be good to have GRE
>>>>>>> in UDP. I would like to see this as GRE in UDP rather than GRE and
>>>>>>> GRE+UDP as two different encaps conceptually (implementations
>> may
>>>>>>> GRE+choose
>>>>>>> to interpret based on what¹s convenient). Optional UDP would also
>>>>>>> mean, those 8 bytes are only used when needed (which could be, for
>>>>>>> example, communicated by the control plane if there is one).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Just my two cents!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Manish
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 03/10/15 2:01 am, "nvo3 on behalf of Pankaj Garg"
>>>>>>> <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In my personal opinion, for network virtualization, I don't see
>>>>>>>> much value in GRE in UDP. Each new encapsulation takes a lot of
>>>>>>>> effort and time before it achieves ecosystem support (from
>>>>>>>> software to hardware to
>>>>>>>> offloads) to make it a viable option. We already have VXLAN/GPE
>>>>>>>> so I am not sure what we gain with GRE in UDP over VXLAN/VXLAN-
>> GPE.
>>>>>>>> There may be scenarios outside of network virtualization, where
>>>>>>>> this may be useful, but I am not familiar with those.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> Pankaj
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 12:38 PM
>>>>>>>>> To: Pankaj Garg <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>> Cc: [email protected]
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization
>>>>>>>>> Using Generic Routing Encapsulation
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi Pankaj,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Do you think there is any value, intent, or issue for doing
>>>>>>>>> NVGRE/UDP (via
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ft
>>>>>>>>> ools
>>>>>>>>> .ie
>>>>>>>>> tf.org%2fhtml%2fdraft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 07&data=01%7c01%7cpankajg%40microsoft.com%7cb4e8bc27b4104053ac7d0
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 8d2ca97cf9d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=mjLRy8EUy
>>>>>>>>> dHFlg4CVx6wqAc0kuElYDl45P%2bNoPH2QaM%3d)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Pankaj Garg
>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> FYI, NVGRE is published as an information RFC 7637. Your
>>>>>>>>>> documents
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> reference NVGRE, please use this RFC number.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>> Pankaj
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> To: ietf-announce at
>>>>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=ietf.org&da
>>>>>>>>>>> ta
>>>>>>>>>>> =0
>>>>>>>>>>> 1%7
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> c01%7cpankajg%40microsoft.com%7cb4e8bc27b4104053ac7d08d2ca97cf9d%
>>>>>>>>> 7c72
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=5hAuGhDIDQJKVz73tx1%2b7
>>>>>>>>> sWRI3
>>>>>>>>>>> KbhTGidy0PMcC2SHc%3d, rfc-dist at
>>>>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=rfc-editor.
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> g&
>>>>>>>>>>> dat
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> a=01%7c01%7cpankajg%40microsoft.com%7cb4e8bc27b4104053ac7d08d2ca9
>>>>>>>>> 7cf9
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=2cRTxuyq9Uzy4cM34
>>>>>>>>> %2fIi
>>>>>>>>>>> jExLAgN8PbJp4WbdxMAk%2bNU%3d
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using
>>>>>>>>>>> Generic Routing Encapsulation
>>>>>>>>>>> From: rfc-editor at
>>>>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=rfc-editor.
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> g&
>>>>>>>>>>> dat
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> a=01%7c01%7cpankajg%40microsoft.com%7cb4e8bc27b4104053ac7d08d2ca9
>>>>>>>>> 7cf9
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=2cRTxuyq9Uzy4cM34
>>>>>>>>> %2fIi
>>>>>>>>>>> jExLAgN8PbJp4WbdxMAk%2bNU%3d
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 15:16:09 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>>>>>>>> Archived-at:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2
>>>>>>>>>>> fm
>>>>>>>>>>> ail
>>>>>>>>>>> archive.ietf.org%2farch%2fmsg%2fietf-
>>>>>>>>> &data=01%7c01%7cpankajg%40micros
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> oft.com%7cb4e8bc27b4104053ac7d08d2ca97cf9d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2
>>>>>>>>> d
>>>>>>>>> 7c
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> d011db47%7c1&sdata=awTaXvxdIhjCQwRST26DMgCILeQsfnypU%2bMcS%2
>>>>>>>>> bSn5QI%3d
>>>>>>>>>>> announce/KPKrdzVjAGl5H931oM-D1ce71zQ>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: rfc-editor at
>>>>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=rfc-editor.
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> g&
>>>>>>>>>>> dat
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> a=01%7c01%7cpankajg%40microsoft.com%7cb4e8bc27b4104053ac7d08d2ca9
>>>>>>>>> 7cf9
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=2cRTxuyq9Uzy4cM34
>>>>>>>>> %2fIi
>>>>>>>>>>> jExLAgN8PbJp4WbdxMAk%2bNU%3d
>>>>>>>>>>> Delivered-to: ietf-announce at
>>>>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=ietfa.amsl.
>>>>>>>>>>> co
>>>>>>>>>>> m&
>>>>>>>>>>> dat
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> a=01%7c01%7cpankajg%40microsoft.com%7cb4e8bc27b4104053ac7d08d2ca9
>>>>>>>>> 7cf9
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=M%2fe6ro1epcVueeV
>>>>>>>>> 33Vce
>>>>>>>>>>> gEClYlei0kGxPJJYjkyJgQQ%3d
>>>>>>>>>>> List-archive:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2f
>>>>>>>>> mai
>>>>>>>>>>> larchive.ietf.org%2farch%2fbrowse%2fietf-
>>>>>>>>> announce%2f&data=01%7c01%7cp
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> ankajg%40microsoft.com%7cb4e8bc27b4104053ac7d08d2ca97cf9d%7c72f988
>>>>>>>>> bf8
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 6f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ewINwsulb7pgkBwQEfLPn2C%2fG8V
>>>>>>>>> UJARLm
>>>>>>>>>>> 0tUxt9hDE0%3d>
>>>>>>>>>>> List-help:
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
>>>>>>>>>>> List-id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions."
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=ietf-
>>>> announce.
>>>>>>>>>>> iet
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> f.org&data=01%7c01%7cpankajg%40microsoft.com%7cb4e8bc27b4104053ac7
>>>>>>>>> d08
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> d2ca97cf9d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=1a9JG3L4tg
>>>>>>>>> brZ
>>>>>>>>>>> %2ff0QtyzPpamed6mC2jjDcg%2fKZe0To0%3d>
>>>>>>>>>>> List-post: <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>> List-subscribe:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2f
>>>>>>>>> www
>>>>>>>>>>> .ietf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fietf-
>>>>>>>>> announce&data=01%7c01%7cpankajg
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> %40microsoft.com%7cb4e8bc27b4104053ac7d08d2ca97cf9d%7c72f988bf86f1
>>>>>>>>> 41a
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> f91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=lpYAfNFCgD0wGuCjHWjgvf9iJkv2Dx0EywPx
>>>>>>>>> 6ZJL3
>>>>>>>>>>> 7g%3d>,
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
>>>>>>>>>>> List-unsubscribe:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2f
>>>>>>>>> www
>>>>>>>>>>> .ietf.org%2fmailman%2foptions%2fietf-
>>>>>>>>> announce&data=01%7c01%7cpankajg%
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 40microsoft.com%7cb4e8bc27b4104053ac7d08d2ca97cf9d%7c72f988bf86f14
>>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>>> af
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=mivKM9832k26InTio8KQsMLs3RPk4WX%2bN
>>>>>>>>> 6hk3mbm
>>>>>>>>>>> qbg%3d>, <mailto:ietf-announce-
>>>>>>>>> [email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>>>>>>>> Reply-to: ietf at
>>>>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=ietf.org&da
>>>>>>>>>>> ta
>>>>>>>>>>> =0
>>>>>>>>>>> 1%7
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> c01%7cpankajg%40microsoft.com%7cb4e8bc27b4104053ac7d08d2ca97cf9d%
>>>>>>>>> 7c72
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=5hAuGhDIDQJKVz73tx1%2b7
>>>>>>>>> sWRI3
>>>>>>>>>>> KbhTGidy0PMcC2SHc%3d
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC
>>>>>>>>> libraries.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>      RFC 7637
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>      Title:      NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic
>>>>>>>>>>>                  Routing Encapsulation
>>>>>>>>>>>      Author:     P. Garg, Ed.,
>>>>>>>>>>>                  Y. Wang, Ed.
>>>>>>>>>>>      Status:     Informational
>>>>>>>>>>>      Stream:     Independent
>>>>>>>>>>>      Date:       September 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>      Mailbox:    pankajg at
>>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=microsoft.com
>>>>>>>>> &d
>>>>>>>>> ata
>>>>>>>>> =01
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> %7c01%7cpankajg%40microsoft.com%7cb4e8bc27b4104053ac7d08d2ca97cf9
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Zv8JyiVSIMZ5jnuPJFa
>>>>>>>>> 7Km8aQuyEl5l3%2f2oZ09GkrJo%3d,
>>>>>>>>>>>                  yushwang at
>>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=microsoft.com
>>>>>>>>> &d
>>>>>>>>> ata
>>>>>>>>> =01
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> %7c01%7cpankajg%40microsoft.com%7cb4e8bc27b4104053ac7d08d2ca97cf9
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Zv8JyiVSIMZ5jnuPJFa
>>>>>>>>> 7Km8aQuyEl5l3%2f2oZ09GkrJo%3d
>>>>>>>>>>>      Pages:      17
>>>>>>>>>>>      Characters: 40042
>>>>>>>>>>>      Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>      I-D Tag:    draft-sridharan-virtualization-nvgre-08.txt
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>      URL:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.
>>>>>>>>> rf
>>>>>>>>> c-
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> editor.org%2finfo%2frfc7637&data=01%7c01%7cpankajg%40microsoft.com
>>>>>>>>> %
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 7cb4e8bc27b4104053ac7d08d2ca97cf9d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011d
>>>>>>>>> b
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 47%7c1&sdata=1gLcmNAgGpxjG%2fSQGunY3F6SM4UJR7RdnOdnof3zLLo%3
>>>>>>>>> d
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>      DOI:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fdx
>>>>>>>>> .do i.o
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> rg%2f10.17487%2fRFC7637&data=01%7c01%7cpankajg%40microsoft.com%7c
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> b4e8bc27b4104053ac7d08d2ca97cf9d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db4
>>>>>>>>> 7
>>>> %7c1&sdata=ifenB7Oyzkra50G0JmwbU5aGPadkn877%2fCv3qSDxR2w%3d
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> This document describes the usage of the Generic Routing
>>>>>>>>>>> Encapsulation
>>>>>>>>>>> (GRE) header for Network Virtualization (NVGRE) in
>>>>>>>>>>> multi-tenant data centers.  Network Virtualization decouples
>>>>>>>>>>> virtual networks and addresses from physical network
>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure, providing isolation and concurrency between
>>>>>>>>>>> multiple virtual networks on the same physical network
>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure.  This document also introduces a Network
>>>>>>>>>>> Virtualization framework to illustrate the use cases, but the
>>>>>>>>>>> focus is on specifying the data- plane aspect
>>>>>>>>> of NVGRE.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the
>> Internet
>>>>>>>>>>> community.
>>>>>>>>>>> It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
>>>>>>>>>>> Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist
>> lists.
>>>>>>>>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.
>>>>>>>>> i
>>>>>>>>> etf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fietf-
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> announce&data=01%7c01%7cpankajg%40microsoft.com%7cb4e8bc27b41040
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 53ac7d08d2ca97cf9d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=lp
>>>>>>>>> Y AfNFCgD0wGuCjHWjgvf9iJkv2Dx0EywPx6ZJL37g%3d
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2
>>>>>>>>>>> fm
>>>>>>>>>>> ail
>>>>>>>>>>> man.rfc-editor.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2frfc-
>>>>>>>>> dist&data=01%7c01%7cpan
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> kajg%40microsoft.com%7cb4e8bc27b4104053ac7d08d2ca97cf9d%7c72f988bf
>>>>>>>>> 86f
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=sUFsfHCWD56LRRX3uHF%2fn4%2f8LV5
>>>>>>>>> BBCr1M
>>>>>>>>>>> qlLcxpAOEA%3d
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> For searching the RFC series, see
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.
>>>>>>>>>>> rfc-
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> editor.org%2fsearch&data=01%7c01%7cpankajg%40microsoft.com%7cb4e8
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> bc27b4104053ac7d08d2ca97cf9d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c
>>>>>>>>> 1&s
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> data=Dzfgq7%2fPmCe3QZQkLVAhawwqaC1%2flYiVFLNGdouOWr0%3d
>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>> downloading RFCs, see
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.
>>>>>>>>>>> rfc-
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> editor.org%2frfc.html&data=01%7c01%7cpankajg%40microsoft.com%7cb4
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> e8bc27b4104053ac7d08d2ca97cf9d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%
>>>>>>>>> 7c1
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> &sdata=yMHIW0ciMjjkpD5iwuIVYEIOE5%2bhOtchaHuyQiUJ9TU%3d
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Requests for special distribution should be addressed to
>>>>>>>>>>> either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor at
>>>>>>>>> rfc-editor.org.
>>>>>>>>>>> Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all
>>>>>>>>>>> RFCs are
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> unlimited distribution.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> The RFC Editor Team
>>>>>>>>>>> Association Management Solutions, LLC
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> nvo3 mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.
>>>>>>>>> i
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> etf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fnvo3&data=01%7c01%7cpankajg%40micro
>>>>>>>>> s
>>>>>>>>> oft
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> .com%7cb4e8bc27b4104053ac7d08d2ca97cf9d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7c
>>>>>>>>> d011
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> db47%7c1&sdata=XquLeptMFXZ4doDoOE8cFJuIuPR5zWDWXK49awfESBg%3
>>>>>>>>> d
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> nvo3 mailing list
>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>> 
>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fww
>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> w.ietf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fnvo3&data=01%7c01%7cpankajg%40mic
>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> rosoft.com%7cc7388153bdda4c0c55e808d2dfbab94b%7c72f988bf86f141af91a
>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> b2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=e9lIOaIf7f%2f0C4%2baNkbnjdXqptoSerbw%2fy
>>>> Vxl
>>>>>>>> Q%2bULD4%3d
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> nvo3 mailing list
>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> .ietf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fnvo3&data=01%7c01%7cpankajg%40micro
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> soft.com%7cc7388153bdda4c0c55e808d2dfbab94b%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab
>>>> 2d
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=e9lIOaIf7f%2f0C4%2baNkbnjdXqptoSerbw%2fyVxl
>>>> Q%2b
>>>>>>> ULD4%3d
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nvo3 mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.
>>>> i
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> etf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fnvo3&data=01%7c01%7cpankajg%40micros
>>>> oft
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> .com%7cc7388153bdda4c0c55e808d2dfbab94b%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7c
>>>> d011
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> db47%7c1&sdata=e9lIOaIf7f%2f0C4%2baNkbnjdXqptoSerbw%2fyVxlQ%2bU
>>>> LD4%3d
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> nvo3 mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

Reply via email to