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

2015-10-30 Thread Dino Farinacci
Pankaj, you have shown precisely the point I have been hounding this mailing list. There are just way too many combinations of encapsulation solutions with little or no *real* incremental benefit. Enough with the data-planes. Once they are implemented and people stop the urge to keep changing

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

2015-10-30 Thread Pankaj Garg
Inline. > -Original Message- > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] > Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 11:57 AM > To: Pankaj Garg > Cc: Dino Farinacci ; Manish Kumar (manishkr) > ; Lucy Yong ;

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

2015-10-30 Thread Pankaj Garg
Inline. > -Original Message- > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] > Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 2:48 PM > To: Pankaj Garg > Cc: Dino Farinacci ; Manish Kumar (manishkr) > ; Lucy Yong ; >

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

2015-10-30 Thread Dino Farinacci
But not talking about one assures there will never be one. Dino > On Oct 30, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Fedyk, Don wrote: > > +1 Although the dream to have "One Encap to Unite them all" may not be > achievable within this Realm :-) > > Don > >> -Original Message- >>

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

2015-10-30 Thread Tom Herbert
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Pankaj Garg wrote: > Inline. > >> -Original Message- >> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] >> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 11:57 AM >> To: Pankaj Garg >> Cc: Dino Farinacci

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

2015-10-30 Thread Tom Herbert
> [PG] Yes, which is what TLVs in NSH/Geneve do but these are part of the > format and not something we have to define on the side. Two independent > entities can attach their metadata on the same packet without conflicts etc. > Eventually, one can take either of these encap protocols and

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

2015-10-30 Thread Anoop Ghanwani
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Anoop Ghanwani > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Tom Herbert > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Put the VNID into a TLV then

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

2015-10-30 Thread Xuxiaohu
> -Original Message- > From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dino Farinacci > Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 3:05 PM > To: Pankaj Garg > Cc: Tom Herbert; nvo3@ietf.org; Manish Kumar (manishkr); Lucy yong > Subject: Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization

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

2015-10-30 Thread Jesse Gross
From: nvo3 on behalf of Pankaj Garg Date: Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:17 AM To: Tom Herbert Cc: "nvo3@ietf.org", "Manish Kumar (manishkr)", Dino Farinacci, Lucy yong Subject: Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation

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

2015-10-30 Thread Anoop Ghanwani
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: > > > Put the VNID into a TLV then you are guaranteed that people will implement > them! > > And don't forget to make the VNID variable length while we're at it!! ___ nvo3

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

2015-10-30 Thread Jesse Gross
From: Tom Herbert Date: Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 9:40 AM To: Jesse Gross Cc: Pankaj Garg, "nvo3@ietf.org", "Manish Kumar (manishkr)", Dino Farinacci, Lucy yong Subject: Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation To follow

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

2015-10-30 Thread Tom Herbert
> To follow up on Pankaj’s mention of ecosystem support, one comment about the > viability of TLVs is that whether they are a useful extension mechanism is > mostly based on the implementer’s perception. If they are seen as an add-on > that is not really core functionality (as in IPv4 and IPv6),

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

2015-10-30 Thread Deepak Kumar (dekumar)
Hi Authors, In section 4.2 Tenant Network with Multiple Subnets >From looking at deployment it looks like customer is just deploying L2 vxlan >on the Leafs and Spines or super spine are connecting multiple Datacenter >using L3 with East west traffic. Can we also add other deployment

Re: [nvo3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-nvo3-security-requirements-05.txt

2015-10-30 Thread Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
Unfortunately I have not seen any comments on this draft. The chairs would like to see evidence that this draft has been reviewed before progressing it. If you have read this version of the draft, this is a reminder to please post any comments to the list. The chairs will also be looking for