Anoop & Fabiio, On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Anoop Ghanwani <[email protected]> wrote:
> Agree with Fabio (including the suggestion for an interim deliverable on > shortcomings). If the WG doesn't agree on the shortcomings, chances are > they may not like the 4th encap. > What do you expect to be different from the summary of technical objections that came out of the last discussion? Are you looking for more detail? I didn't see disagreement about the accuracy of the technical objections. Regards, Alia > Anoop > > 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. >> >> 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
