Tom, I think your note summarizes perfectly why we need to move forward with 3 encapsulations. Some things matter more to you than they do to me. If we start calling for consensus on every one of these requirements, we may end up with a solution that satisfies nobody.
Anoop On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com> wrote: > 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
