Re: [nvo3] Review draft-ietf-nvo3-use-case-07

Hi Nicolas, Thank you very much for the review. Please see inline below. -Original Message- From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nicolas Bouliane Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 7:10 AM To: nvo3@ietf.org Subject: [nvo3] Review draft-ietf-nvo3-use-case-07 Authors, I

[nvo3] Review draft-ietf-nvo3-use-case-07

Authors, I have read draft-ietf-nvo3-use-case-07 and here's my review. It has been an easy and pleasant read since the text is clear and well written. The document helps grasping the potential of nvo3 in the context of data centers and to create a mental image of how things might interact

Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation

Inline. > -Original Message- > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 12:25 PM > To: Pankaj Garg > Cc: Dino Farinacci ; Manish Kumar (manishkr) > ; Lucy Yong

Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation

> A key limitation that prevents software from using extensions is NIC > offloads. Both Geneve and VXLAN-GPE+NSH allows extension of these protocols > without breaking NIC offloads. Can you describe why you think this is? Both Geneve and VXLAN-GPE+NSH are not usable with most implementations of

Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation

"GRE-in-UDP I am not really sure where this fits in for network virtualization. It does not have required ecosystem support to be a viable option and does not solve the need for future encapsulations." Counter argument is that there are many GRE applications today that face load balancing

Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation

Inline. > -Original Message- > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 1:34 PM > To: Pankaj Garg > Cc: Dino Farinacci ; Manish Kumar (manishkr) > ; Lucy Yong ;

Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation

Inline. > -Original Message- > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 12:55 PM > To: Pankaj Garg > Cc: Dino Farinacci ; Manish Kumar (manishkr) > ; Lucy Yong

Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Pankaj Garg wrote: > Inline. > >> -Original Message- >> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] >> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 12:55 PM >> To: Pankaj Garg >> Cc: Dino Farinacci

Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Lucy yong wrote: >> >> "GRE-in-UDP >> I am not really sure where this fits in for network virtualization. It >> does not have required ecosystem support to be a viable option and >> does not solve the need for future encapsulations." >> >>

Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation

> > "GRE-in-UDP > I am not really sure where this fits in for network virtualization. It > does not have required ecosystem support to be a viable option and > does not solve the need for future encapsulations." > > Counter argument is that there are many GRE applications today that > face

Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation

Inline > -Original Message- > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 6:07 PM > To: Lucy yong > Cc: Pankaj Garg ; Dino Farinacci > ; Manish Kumar (manishkr) ;

Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation

>> As for "safely extend using TLVs" have you actually verified that works with >> HW, performance is unaffected, and this does not create new vectors of DOS >> attacks? (Given the unmitigated disappointment with IP options I'm very >> skeptical of and deployment of TLVs at L3 or below in the data