Tom, Your points were noted in the data-plane roundtable feedback that we presented Thursday at IETF.
The authors will meet to go over the points raised from the roundtable and update the dt-encap draft accordingly. Thanks, Sami It has been more than two weeks since I posted this. Considering that there is now a consensus call for Geneve, could someone who is advocating Geneve please respond to my concerns about this new text and whether my suggestion for changing the protocol are acceptable. Strategic silence does not make problems go away... :-) Tom On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com><mailto:t...@herbertland.com>>; wrote: > The new section "Constraints on Protocol Features" seems to be punting > the issues that were raised concerning processing of TLVs to a control > plane which itself is still TDB. This is not normative and if someone > were implementing a dataplane for Geneve today this provides no > practical guidance on how to make it interoperable. > > Alternatively, to address the TLV processing concerns, I would suggest: > > 1) Eliminate non-critical options. This is the most likely source of > DOS attacks where an attacker just fills up a packet with tiny fake > options. The counter argument to this is that it's need to roll out > new features, but TBH I am am skeptical this is really use in the > datacenter for that. It's more typical we just configure the allowed > options on both sides or rely on negotiation to specify the known > options like we do in TCP. > 2) Enforce an ordering on options as was discussed previously. Maybe > just require the TLVs to be ordered by type. This eliminates the > combinatorics of TLVs and since it would be a requirement on the > protocol the order is well known and should yield interoperable > implementations. > > Tom > > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:55 PM, > <internet-dra...@ietf.org><mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>>; wrote: >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Network Virtualization Overlays of the IETF. >> >> Title : Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization >> Encapsulation >> Authors : Jesse Gross >> Ilango Ganga >> T. Sridhar >> Filename : draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-04.txt >> Pages : 26 >> Date : 2017-03-13 >> >> Abstract: >> Network virtualization involves the cooperation of devices with a >> wide variety of capabilities such as software and hardware tunnel >> endpoints, transit fabrics, and centralized control clusters. As a >> result of their role in tying together different elements in the >> system, the requirements on tunnels are influenced by all of these >> components. Flexibility is therefore the most important aspect of a >> tunnel protocol if it is to keep pace with the evolution of the >> system. This draft describes Geneve, a protocol designed to >> recognize and accommodate these changing capabilities and needs. >> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve/ >> >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-04 >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-04 >> >> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at >> tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org>. >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/<http://ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nvo3 mailing list >> nvo3@ietf.org<mailto:nvo3@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
