On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 10/6/2016 11:38 AM, Alia Atlas wrote: > > .... > > >> (1) Publish all 3 encapsulations as Informational RFCs. This makes the >> working group look indecisive but at least the vendors can go to market >> with what they choose with some acknowledgement from IETF. >> > > I don't see them going through in the current condition. Geneve says > carry along arbitrary and unspecified data; that's a security/privacy issue > - maybe resolvable with text. Geneve says MUST use path MTU discovery, but > header-size can cause issues to get to encapsulated packet header to return > to the VM. > > > Most of these proposals are problematic when it comes to MTU and > fragmentation issues. Progressing any of them as WG docs would require > substantial revision to address these issues. >
It would be very helpful to have more reviews and discussion of the issues with each document and thoughts about implications as they fit into a system larger than a common-encap data-center. I would welcome more good technical conversation. Regards, Alia
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
