Dear Authors of the VxLAN-GPE, GUE, and GENEVE, all protocols under consideration use a bit flag rather than explicit protocol type to indicate that payload is a test packet, i.e. active OAM. I'm trying to understand the rationale of such decision. Does use of the bit flag rather than protocol type produce more efficient implementation, is more HW friendly? In GUE, the the field to indicate type of the payload even tagged Proto/ctype as its interpretation depends upon value of the C bit. But wouldn't it be simpler if all proposals used protocol type to identify OAM payload? And if the protocol type is OAM, then after the protocol header have OOAM Header, e.g. as proposed in draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header-00>. Then NVO3 protocols would be able to have common Active OAM (Fault Management and Performance Measurement) that can be used in BIER and SFC. And the bit, the bit I'd propose to redefine to be used for passive performance measurement as described in draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-00>. (Allocating two bits-long field would enable more accurate measurements using the Alternate Marking method). And these steps will enable us to develop common Active OAM and use passive performance measurement regardless, almost, of the data plane protocol used in NVO layer.
Regards, Greg On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd like to have people focus on the key point of this thread. > > Are there serious technical objections (and specifically what are they) to > moving forward with VXLAN-GPE as the standards-track protocol? > > Are there serious technical objections (and specifically what are they) to > moving forward with GENEVE as the standards-track protocol? > > Are there serious technical objections (and specifically what are they) to > moving forward with GUE as the standards-track protocol? > > We need to capture any relevant objections. So far, there's been some > discussion on extensibility - with Tom Herbert providing concrete concerns. > > I have concluded that almost all the authors would prefer to have no > standards track solution if they can't guarantee that theirs is that > standard. > > I do hear concerns about whether a decision will be too late. I think > that a decision can only be helpful. It goes back to when is the best > time to plant a tree - with the answer of 20 years ago or now. > > Regards, > Alia > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Naoki Matsuhira <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> >> >> On 2016/07/21 23:56, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 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? >>> >> >> I want to inform to this mailing list that I proposed ME6E-FP and ME6E-PR >> at the yokohama meeting. I also have proposal M46E-FP and M46E-PR (past >> called SA46T). >> >> These encapsulation technologies are based on address mapping. ME6E use >> IPv6 address which mapping MAC address, and M46E use IPv6 address which >> mapping IPv4 address. >> >> I understand too many encapsulation technologies, however these my >> proposal are simple, and may contribute to the Internet. >> >> I believe address mapping approach is unique, so I want to propose again. >> >> sorry not the answer to the question. >> >> Naoki Matsuhira >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nvo3 mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
