Hi Larry, Very briefly in-line.
On Jul 21, 2016 10:04 PM, "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <kree...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Hi Matthew, > > See my responses inline below. > > Thanks, Larry > > > > On 7/21/16, 7:56 AM, "nvo3 on behalf of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" > <nvo3-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of matthew.bo...@nokia.com> wrote: > > >WG > > > >There was a discussion in the NVO3 WG meeting in Berlin following strong > >advice from our Area Director that we need to come to a consensus on > >converging on a common encapsulation. Two sets of questions were asked: > >(1) Should the WG move forward with one standards track encap? > >(2) For a given encap, do you have significant technical objections? > > > >This email relates to the second of these questions. Please refer to the > >separate email titled ³Consensus call on moving forward with single > >encap² for discussion related to point (1). > > I am sorry I missed the meeting. Was the room polled for the option to > move forward with more than one encap? I am interested in knowing the > response to that question since on the list, that option appeared to have > much more traction. If the room was not polled for that option or for a > choice between the options discussed on the list, then we have > incomplete/misleading results for how to move forward. Yes, of course the question was asked. There was, as I recall, almost no one in favor. I would recommend watching/listening to the recording to get a feel of the discussion. Of course, there should be minutes out, but not quite as quickly. Regards, Alia > > > > >We would recommend that those not familiar with RFC 7282 "On Consensus > >and Humming in the IETF" may wish to read it for a fuller understanding > >of how the IETF handles challenging consensus decisions and why. > > > >We would like to determine the consensus on the following points on the > >list (there is a separate thread concerning point (2)): > > > >1) Does anyone have a significant technical objection to selecting Geneve > >as the single NVO3 Standards track document? Please be as concrete and > >detailed as possible as to your technical objection. > > Yes, I would strongly object to this being the only option. > There are applications where both encap/decap and deep packet inspection > of NVO3 encapsulated packets requires extremely low latency and low > jitter. The variable nature of the Geneve header makes meeting these > requirements extremely challenging and/or costly (in terms of the number > of gates needed) to implement in hardware. > > Additionally, Geneve does not have any backward compatibility mechanisms > for VXLAN support. Arguably, VXLAN is the most widely implemented and > deployed NVO3 protocol in data centers today, so this is an important > consideration. > > > > > >2) Does anyone have a significant technical objection to selecting > >VXLAN-GPE as the single NVO3 Standards track document? Please be as > >concrete and detailed as possible as to your technical objection. > > > >3)Does anyone have a significant technical objection to selecting GUE as > >the single NVO3 Standards track document? Please be as concrete and > >detailed as possible as to your technical objection. > > My major objection to GUE being the only option is the lack of backward > compatibility with VXLAN (see above). I am also concerned about how much > actual industry implementation GUE has in both software and hardware. > > > > > > > >Please reply to this email thread on the NVO3 list by 29th July 2016. > > > >Please DO NOT use this thread to argue or debate the importance or > >details of any technical objections that arise. That can be done in > >other threads. This thread should be used to state your initial > >objection. Any objections raised will be summarized in an additional > >email at the end of this consensus call so that the WG can discuss the > >results in detail. > > > >While the list of technical issues has been collected for each > >encapsulation, the chairs are discussing how to develop an acceptable > >solution. The goal is to have an answer before IETF 97. The chairs > >will follow up to the list shortly. > > > >Regards > > > >Matthew and Sam > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
