On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Sami Boutros <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > Sami,
I really don't understand how this WG is supposed to work :-(. The draft was posted to this list for purposes of discussion on the list and now there is a consensus call on the same list. But, the draft has received very little discussion and now we have to wait for the committee to get a response? I implore the Geneve advocates to actively engage with our attempts at critical discussion on the list about this draft or the protocol draft. I gave a more in depth review of the dt-encap draft which some direct questions about the content which should be a starting basis for discussion. Thanks, Tom > 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 <[email protected]>; 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, <[email protected]>; 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. >>> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> nvo3 mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
