Dear Authors I have read the latest draft and support publication.
This is a very important document for operators to help provide guidance on NVO3 directional encapsulation and what will be the eventual end all be all encapsulation which from the draft it sounds like GENEVE is out in front. Few comments. The draft mentions GUE but does not expand what GUE stands for. As RFC 7348 VXLAN is the most widely of all deployments worldwide I am wondering why it is not listed in the NVO3 encapsulation types. Also RFC 7637 NVGRE as well has implementations by vendors and deployments by operators I wonder why that was excluded in the list of NVO3 encapsulations examined. The goal of NVO3 charter is to have a single encapsulation type and GENEVE based on section 7 is the starting point for a proposed standard for NVO3 encapsulation. So let’s say NVO3 ends up being the chosen end all be all standard encapsulation type, what would vendors as well as operators do with existing VXLAN and NVGRE deployments and would those deployments eventually require software or I am guessing hardware upgrades to support GENEVE. It seems that out of the three encapsulation types in the draft, GENEVE was chosen as it builds on existing VXLAN framework with some added extensibility so not too difficult for operators migration in theory from VXLAN to GENEVE. Kind Regards Gyan On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 11:51 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Matthew and Sam, > > I've read the latest version of this draft. > I think this document is valuable and ready for publication. > > Best Regards, > Xiao Min > > ------------------原始邮件------------------ > 发件人：Bocci,Matthew(Nokia-GB) > 收件人：NVO3; > 抄送人：[email protected]; > 日 期 ：2021年07月01日 23:09 > 主 题 ：[nvo3] Second Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-nvo3-encap > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > This email begins a two-week working group last call for > draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-06. > Please review the draft and post any comments to the NVO3 working group > list. If you have read the latest version of the draft but have no comments > and believe it is ready for publication as an informational RFC, please > also indicate so to the WG email list. > We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to > this document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with > IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). > If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this document, please > respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any > relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from > all the Authors and Contributors. > Currently there are no IPR disclosures against this document. > If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please > explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been > disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. > As a reminder, we are pursuing publication of this document in order to > permanently document the experience of one working group in choosing > between multiple proposed standards track encapsulation drafts. The idea > was that this would provide helpful guidance to others in the community > going forward. > This poll will run until Thursday 15th July 2021. > Regards > Matthew and Sam_______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* *M 301 502-1347*
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
