Sam, We can't live with VXLAN because of lack of extensibility--that is one thing all 3 proposals agree on.
Let's look at how we got here: The NVO3 charter explicitly mentioned that picking (or working on) a single encap is a non-goal. Now the WG has done all the work and arrived at 3 encaps (even 3 is a convergence; there were even more). It would have been hard to get convergence to a single encap even back then. Now, after all this work, not just in the IETF but actual implementations, I think it's next to impossible to get convergence. I would be absolutely thrilled if I were proven wrong. Also, just because the NVO3 WG comes up with an encapsulation does not mean that there won't be NVO3-like implementations using e.g. L2TPv3 or LISP encapsulations (and those encapsulations are IETF standards). These are the possibilities I see for the WG and also how I see them playing out: 1. Publish 3 RFCs -- path of least resistance. All 3 encaps go through IETF rigor (security review, etc.). 2. Work on a single encap -- probably a year or two before we have a standard? In the meantime the 3 drafts continue to get deployed even though they expire. The new encap may or may not see the light of day. Best case it ends up as 4th encap. Chances are the earlier encaps will continue to evolve on their own, each becoming a defacto standard. 3. Do nothing. Let the drafts expire. So why did we do all this work? I picked #1. If we pick #2 or #3, if the authors want to publish them as individual submissions, they are free to do so and get RFC numbers anyway. What are the options that you see and what would be your recommendation for the way forward? Anoop On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Sam Aldrin <[email protected]> wrote: > Anoop, > > As I said in one my earlier emails, if new encap proposals are not > converging on resolving issues, why don't we just live with existing encaps > like VXLAN etc? Why would making these RFC'es is important by standards > body, when it is about business rather than technical ones? > > Backward compatibility, extensibility, security, etc., issues are very > important and the degree vary depending on whom you ask, for ex: operator > to vendor, software to hardware. That is whole new discussion and beyond > this thread, but those are the reasons for not reaching rough consensus. > (Ref: mailing list and summary) > > I personally do not think WG should just *stamp RFC for drafts because of > business reasons. > > -sam > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Anoop Ghanwani <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Sam, >> >> My lack of interest in a new encap is because I think it's too late to >> converge them. At this point, there are business issues (as opposed to >> technical ones) that would limit the effectiveness of a new encap. At best >> it's a no-op, at worst it creates even more confusion in the market while >> the other encaps continue with their deployment. >> >> The best that the IETF can do is at this point is to document these and >> make sure the encaps are not breaking something else. >> >> IMO, none of the objections raised are showstoppers. Any encap can be >> modified to do anything we want it to do, with the exception of backwards >> compatibility. The need, efficacy, and the price of backwards >> compatibility can be argued, so that advantage is not a slam dunk either. >> >> Anoop >> >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Sam Aldrin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Anoop, >>> >>> <WG chair hat off> >>> Couple of questions, if I may ask >>> 1. How do you plan to address technical objections raised? >>> 2. Not interested because it is too late and would rather live with any >>> deficiencies in the DP proposals? >>> </WG chair hat off> >>> >>> -sam >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Anoop Ghanwani <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately, no rough consensus emerged from the list discussion. >>>>> >>>>> The chairs and our AD have also been trying to form a design team to >>>>> take forward the encapsulation discussion and see if there is potential to >>>>> design a common encapsulation. However, there has been insufficient >>>>> interest in this initiative. We would like to hear opinions and >>>>> confirmation or disagreement on interest in creating a DP encapsulation >>>>> that addresses the various technical concerns. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I have little interest in yet another encap. >>>> >>>> Anoop >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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
