Need for a new protocol should not be based on how hard or easy it is easy to get ethertype or UDP port. That is procedural pain than technical merit.
I tend to agree with Dino. If NSH could run as a transport client just like any other application, we should do that. Otherwise authors should provide more stronger reasons on why NSH is different and the need for a new protocol. AFAIK, every protocol started off with being lightweight and simple, till new one came up :D Sam Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 5, 2015, at 4:21 PM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > > As I mentioned at the mic, if NSH runs over UDP/IP, then it can run over > anything. And then every encapsulation spec doesn’t need to special case NSH. > > Like the analogy I used at the mic … why doest’t VXLAN-GPE have a code point > for DNS? ;-) > > Answer: it makes no sense. Run NSH as a transport layer client and it will > work over everything we have already built and has a good chance to work over > anything we will build. > > NSH is no more an overlay than SMTP is for email. > > Dino > >> On Nov 5, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Bottorff, Paul <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> It is definitely a useful option to run directly over Ethernet to allow for >> small scale environments which don’t need NVO3 overlays. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Paul >> >> From: sfc [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lucy yong >> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 5:08 AM >> To: Surendra Kumar (smkumar); Alia Atlas >> Cc: [email protected]; Larry Kreeger (kreeger); [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [sfc] comment on draft-kumar-sfc-nsh-udp-transport >> >> If SFC is deployed in Ethernet network, do we need NSH over Ethernet? >> >> Lucy >> >> From: Surendra Kumar (smkumar) [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 4:12 AM >> To: Alia Atlas; Lucy yong >> Cc: [email protected]; Larry Kreeger (kreeger); [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [sfc] comment on draft-kumar-sfc-nsh-udp-transport >> >> I did go through the process of getting the ethertype for NSH and I also >> have obtained a UDP port# in the past. I have to agree with Alia. >> >> Lucy, >> I appreciate you guys taking a crack at NSH over GRE over UDP nested >> encapsulation. It simply calls for unnecessary overhead and complexity in >> formulating and processing such a packet along the tunnel path. >> >> I admit i have not read your draft yet, will certainly do. >> >> Regard, >> Surendra. >> >> >> >> Sent from a thumb typed device. >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Alia Atlas <[email protected]> >> Date: 2015/11/05 6:18 PM (GMT+09:00) >> To: Lucy yong <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected], "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <[email protected]>, >> [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [sfc] comment on draft-kumar-sfc-nsh-udp-transport >> >> <no-hats> >> I think that getting a UDP port is a lot more straightforward than an >> Ethertype. >> Not having extra bytes is also an advantage. >> >> Regards, >> Alia >> </no-hats> >> >> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Lucy yong <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Larry, >> >> The benefit is to avoid working a UDP transport for NSH. >> >> Thanks, >> Lucy >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: sfc [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Larry Kreeger (kreeger) >> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 1:45 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [sfc] comment on draft-kumar-sfc-nsh-udp-transport >> >> Hi Behcet, >> >> I¹m not sure I¹m following what your point is. It is true that VXLAN-GPE >> also adds additional overhead which may not always be needed. Carrying NSH >> directly over UDP avoids that as well. Lucy brought up a new option that I >> had never heard suggested before, which was to carry NSH in GRE over UDP. >> This adds a GRE header in between the UDP header and NSH, but in my opinion >> doesn¹t bring any benefits - just more overhead and complication. >> >> Thanks, Larry >> >>> On 11/5/15, 4:32 PM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Larry Kreeger (kreeger) >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Hi Lucy, >>>> >>>> One of the motivations for carrying NSH directly on UDP is to avoid >>>> unnecessary overhead or complication. Adding the GRE header in >>>> between does not seem to add any additional benefit that I can see >>>> only additional overhead. >>> >>> The point was not with VXLAN-GPE. >>> >>> Behcet >>>> Thanks, Larry >>>> >>>> From: sfc <[email protected]> on behalf of Lucy yong >>>> <[email protected]> >>>> Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 11:59 PM >>>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: [sfc] comment on draft-kumar-sfc-nsh-udp-transport >>>> >>>> There is a gre/udp tunnel transport (draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-08) >>>> that nsh can use for the transport; just need to register an >>>> Ethertype for nsh. >>>> The gre/udp transport provides all features nsh needs with additional >>>> security capability. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Lucy >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> sfc mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sfc mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sfc mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sfc mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
