On 1/18/16, 1:01 PM, "nvo3 on behalf of Tom Herbert" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:27 PM, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Network Virtualization Overlays Working Group of the IETF. Title : Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation Authors : Jesse Gross Ilango Ganga Filename : draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-01.txt Pages : 26 Date : 2016-01-14 Abstract: Network virtualization involves the cooperation of devices with a wide variety of capabilities such as software and hardware tunnel endpoints, transit fabrics, and centralized control clusters. As a result of their role in tying together different elements in the system, the requirements on tunnels are influenced by all of these components. Flexibility is therefore the most important aspect of a tunnel protocol if it is to keep pace with the evolution of the system. This draft describes Geneve, a protocol designed to recognize and accommodate these changing capabilities and needs. A couple of comments... The discussion of efficient implementation (section 2.2.1) seems vague to me. For example, from the draft: "As new functionality becomes sufficiently well defined to add to endpoints, supporting options can be designed using ordering restrictions and other techniques to ease parsing." What are these ordering restrictions? Does this mean TLVs have (or might eventually have) some defined ordering as to how they can appear in the packet? Would this contradict section 4.3: "Option ordering is not significant". What are "other techniques to ease parsing"? The draft is purposely trying to be agnostic to different implementations and obviously doesn’t want to mandate any specific techniques. There are several different types of software/devices and different architectures within those classes so it would be difficult to say what the “right” way to do things is today, let alone the future. However, given the number of implementations that either already exist or are emerging, it seems like this is a solvable problem. Thanks for pointing out the possible inconsistency in the text – I’ll take a look at that. Jesse
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
