On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Anoop Ghanwani <an...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote: > 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,
These are not requirements but were technical objections raised as requested by the WG chairs. It is possible that these objections are not valid, or maybe they can be addressed by updating the drafts with more protocol or at least clarification. But in any case, I think it is reasonable to expect that the objections are at least acknowledged and discussed before moving forward with a protocol-- if we're just ignoring them then what was the point of taking the time to review the protocols and raise objections? Tom > 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
