On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Anoop Ghanwani <an...@alumni.duke.edu> 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. > Lack of security is not a showstopper? No resilience to DDOS attacks is not a showstopper? No ability to extend the protocol without a complete hardware forklift is not a showstopper? Maybe this is true in your datacenter but it certainly is not true in mine. These are fundamental technical objections with VXLAN, VXLAN-GPE and Geneve. Neither are they are newly pointed out, for instance I've been asking for a resolution to the VNI security problem for at least three years and so far this has not been addressed. If it was as easy as you say these problems should have been fixed by now.
Tom > Anoop > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Sam Aldrin <aldrin.i...@gmail.com> 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 <an...@alumni.duke.edu> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) >>> <matthew.bo...@nokia.com> 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 >>> nvo3@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
