Good suggestion. I support! Lucy -----Original Message----- From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 10:55 AM To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB); Joe Touch Cc: [email protected]; Tom Herbert; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lizhong Jin Subject: Re: [nvo3] Update on encapsulation design team
Hi Matthew, I suggest Joe Touch to be included in the design team. I believe he can do a good job. As I had expressed before, I believe there is little need for a next gen encap while the current ones like VXLAN and ILA are in use and people seem to be happy with them? Regards, Behcet On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 5:04 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[email protected]> wrote: > Lizhong, Tom > > > > That is correct. The idea is to pick one of the existing three > encapsulations and enhance it to address the technical concerns that > have been expressed on the list. > > > > Those technical issues have already been documented on the list, but > there may be more that emerge as work progresses. I am not sure we > need to write them all up in a separate draft – that was attempted in > the past in the form of the gap analysis draft that did not progress. > I expect the design team to take the technical issues into account and > it would be useful for their draft to explicitly explain them and show how > they are addressed. > > > > Regards > > > > Matthew > > > > > > From: Dacheng Zhang <[email protected]> on behalf of Lizhong Jin > <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, 21 October 2016 at 07:04 > To: NVO3 <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Tom Herbert > <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Update on encapsulation design team > > > > I get the similar understanding from Tom. But I am not confident with > the timeline, hope will not be delayed. > > Regards > > Lizhong > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Tom Herbert <[email protected]> > To: Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> > Cc: Fabio Maino <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 12:35:40 -0700 > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Update on encapsulation design team On Thu, Oct > 20, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> > wrote: >> I agree with Fabio. >> >> Choosing a single encapsulation that is not 1 of the 3, creates a 4th >> one that no one wants. >> >> And guess what, you make all 3 authors unhappy where none of them >> will endorse (or implement) the 4th one. >> > My $0.02: That's not the way I read Matthew's message. It seems like > the conclusion to the technical objections query is that objections > were raised for all three protocols and so none of them were ready for > standardization. The goal of the design team seems to be to start with > one, presumably the one with the fewest issues, and enhance it to > answer all the technical objections with an effort to maintain > backwards compatibility for that protocol. This might essentially be a > method of picking one as I believe you proposed earlier. > > Tom > >> Dino >> >>> On Oct 20, 2016, at 12:02 PM, Fabio Maino <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> (for full disclosure I'm one of the authors of VXLAN-GPE) >>> >>> Matt, Sam, Alia, >>> I've expressed multiple times and in multiple venues my adversity >>> (and the motivations) to set this group to design yet another >>> encapsulation. I won't repeat it here once again, but I want to >>> re-assert that it's still were I stand. >>> >>> I've seen quite a few people in the mailing list here expressing >>> similar concerns, but I see that it has not changed the opinion of >>> the chairs and the AD on what they believe is the best way to move forward. >>> >>> That said, here are my comments to the charter. >>> >>> I think the design team first goal should be to clearly articulate >>> the shortcomings of the current encapsulations proposed to the WG. >>> This should be the very first deliverable of the design team. The >>> actual design work should start only once the WG has reached consensus on >>> that document. >>> Especially considering that some of the encapsulations proposed are >>> being deployed, I think articulating the shortcomings will help to >>> make the best choice in term of (1) selecting which one will need to >>> be extended, and (2) designing the actual extensions. >>> >>> Below are my proposals on how to modify the wording of the charter. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/20/16 1:37 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) wrote: >>>> WG, >>>> >>>> We would like to give you an update on the process in the WG for >>>> progressing the issue of a data plane encapsulation. The chairs and >>>> Alia believe that the best way forward is to progress a single >>>> encapsulation format that addresses the technical concerns raised >>>> on the list in the recent discussions. This would address the clear >>>> overall consensus of the Berlin meeting and list for a single >>>> encapsulation. >>>> >>>> The strategy should be to take one of the three existing >>>> encapsulations and enhance it to address these concerns. This would >>>> become the standards track output of the WG. The existing three >>>> drafts (GENEVE, GUE and >>>> VXLAN-GPE) should be forwarded to the IESG as informational after >>>> the standards track draft specifying the single encapsulation. This >>>> provides an opportunity for those encapsulations to be documented and >>>> maintained. >>>> >>>> The single encapsulation should be viewed as one that the WG and >>>> industry can converge around for the future. >>>> >>>> We have created a design team to progress work on a single >>>> encapsulation that can form the basis or work going forward. The design >>>> team members are: >>>> Michael Schmidt, Uri Elzur, Ilango Ganga, Erik Nordmark, Rajeev >>>> Manur, Prankaj Garg. Many thanks to these individuals for their help. >>>> >>>> Please see below for a draft charter for the design team. Please >>>> review the charter and send comments to the list by 2nd November 2016. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Matthew and Sam >>>> >>>> >>>> ==== >>>> NVO3 Encapsulation Design team 2016 >>>> >>>> Problem Statement >>>> The NVO3 WG charter states that it may produce requirements for >>>> network virtualization data planes based on encapsulation of >>>> virtual network traffic over an IP-based underlay data plane. Such >>>> requirements should consider OAM and security. Based on these >>>> requirements the WG will select, extend, and/or develop one or more data >>>> plane encapsulation format(s). >>>> >>>> This has led to drafts describing three encapsulations being >>>> adopted by the working group: >>>> - draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-03 >>>> - draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-04 >>>> - draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-02 >>>> >>>> Discussion on the list and in face-to-face meetings has identified >>>> a number of technical problems with each of these encapsulations. >>>> Furthermore, there was clear consensus at the IETF meeting in >>>> Berlin that it is undesirable for the working group to progress >>>> more than one data plane encapsulation. Although consensus could >>>> not be reached on the list, the overall consensus was for a single >>>> encapsulation (RFC2418, Section 3.3). >>>> Nonetheless there has been resistance to converging on a single >>>> encapsulation format, although doing so would provide the best >>>> benefit to the industry. >>> >>> The portion of the last sentence that follows the comma ("although >>> doing so would provide the best benefit to the industry") doesn't >>> seem to be adding anything to the charter. I'd suggest it could be removed. >>> >>>> >>>> Design Team Goals >>> The design team should clearly articulate in a draft which are the >>> shortcomings of the proposed encapsulations, and where they fall >>> short in addressing the NVO3 architectural requirements. >>> >>> Once the 'shortcomings' draft has reached consensus of the WG, >>>> The design team should take one of the proposed encapsulations and >>>> enhance it to address the technical concerns. >>>> Backwards compatibility with the chosen encapsulation and the >>>> simple evolution of deployed networks as well as applicability to >>>> all locations in the NVO3 architecture >>> , together with the design goals articulated in the 'shortcoming' >>> draft, >>> >>>> are goals. The DT should specifically avoid a design that is >>>> burdensome on hardware implementations, but should allow future >>>> extensibility. The chosen design should also operate well with ICMP and in >>>> ECMP environments. >>>> If further extensibility is required, then it should be done in >>>> such a manner that it does not require the consent of an entity >>>> outside of the IETF. >>>> >>>> Timeline >>>> The design team should >>> first produce the 'shortcomings' draft, get it adopted by the WG, >>> and then >>> >>>> produce a first draft describing the proposal by end of January 2017. >>>> Target adoption by the WG by March 2017 IETF. >>>> >>> (those two dates may need to be adjusted accordingly) >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Fabio >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
