Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-xiang-nvo3-geneve-packet-spray-00.txt

The paper "On the Impact of Packet Spraying in Data Center Networks" (*) shows impact of packet spraying with TCP and seems to show good results without the sequence number proposed in the Internet Draft. Can the authors comment on that paper or on the need for the sequence number and group

[nvo3] draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv [was Re: Poll for NVO3 WG adoption and IPR call for draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header-03]

On Nov 16, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > Dear WG Chairs, et. al, > in their presentation in Singapore the iOAM team pointed to interest in using > the extra header right after the GENEVE encapsulation. I've looked at their > proposal and believe that the OOAM

Re: [nvo3] Suggested wording for the "NAT Traversing Consideration" to be added to the Section 6 of draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-00

warding, anyway. -d > Linda > > -Original Message- > From: Dan Wing [mailto:dw...@vmware.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 4:18 PM > To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@huawei.com> > Cc: Sami Boutros <sbout...@vmware.com>; draft-ietf-nvo3-en...@ietf.org; NVO3

Re: [nvo3] Suggested wording for the "NAT Traversing Consideration" to be added to the Section 6 of draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-00

> On Sep 20, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@huawei.com> wrote: > > Sami, > > Answers inserted below: > > From: Sami Boutros [mailto:sbout...@vmware.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 5:23 PM > To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@hua

Re: [nvo3] Suggested wording for the "NAT Traversing Consideration" to be added to the Section 6 of draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-00

traffic is going to use the inverted 5-tuple of the outbound traffic. I don't see value in complicating what the IT administrator needs to configure to allow that incoming traffic. -d > > Linda > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Sep 8, 2017, at 7:34 PM, Dan Wing <dw...@vmware.co

Re: [nvo3] Suggested wording for the "NAT Traversing Consideration" to be added to the Section 6 of draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-00

from their remote Geneve peer." -d > Linda Dunbar > > _ > From: Linda Dunbar > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 2:31 PM > To: 'Dan Wing' <dw...@vmware.com> > Cc: NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-nvo3-en...@ietf.org > Sub

Re: [nvo3] Carrying entropy, was: draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-00 should add considerations of traversing NAPT

> On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:19 PM, Dale R. Worley <wor...@ariadne.com> wrote: > > Dan Wing <dw...@vmware.com> writes: >> Using Geneve VNI doesn't take us towards that goal, though. On a >> simple network, there is only one VNI (one virtual network), and if we >

Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-04.txt

ere the v4 network needs to benefit from ECMP and the v4 receiver needs to benefit from CPU balancing. -d > > > -Original Message- > From: Dan Wing [mailto:dw...@vmware.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 9:30 PM > To: Dave Dolson > Cc: Ganga, Ilango S; nvo3@ie

Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-04.txt

> On Jul 19, 2017, at 7:01 AM, Dave Dolson wrote: > > This document shows IPv6 encapsulation, but provides no guidance about > setting the Outer IPv6 flow label. > I would expect the flow label to be described with similar language to the > UDP source port, since Flow

Re: [nvo3] Carrying entropy, was: draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-00 should add considerations of traversing NAPT

> On Jul 14, 2017, at 7:11 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote: > > Joe Touch writes: >> Even a NVI isn't really flow information, so might not have any >> bearing on whether a set of packets (with the same NVI) should maintain >> their relative order. > > Well, the

Re: [nvo3] draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-00 should add considerations of traversing NAPT

(which ICE requires). > Or all the NAT device convert the NVE’s UDP port 6081 to multiple port > numbers? I don't understand 'convert ... to multiple port numbers'. -d > > Thanks, > Linda > > -Original Message- > From: Dan Wing [mailto:dw...@vmware.com] > S

Re: [nvo3] draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-00 should add considerations of traversing NAPT

DP port to provide the ECMP and receiver benefit. What of NAT64? -d > Joe > > > On 7/12/2017 4:08 PM, Dan Wing wrote: >>> On Jul 12, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@huawei.com> wrote: >>> >>> Sami, et al, >>> >>>

Re: [nvo3] draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-00 should add considerations of traversing NAPT

> On Jul 12, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote: > > Sami, et al, > > > > The draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-00 is written very clear. > > > > However, the Section 6 (Common Encapsulation Considerations) should add a > sub-section on the consideration of traversing

Re: [nvo3] draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-00 should add considerations of traversing NAPT

> On Jul 12, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote: > > Sami, et al, > > > > The draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-00 is written very clear. > > > > However, the Section 6 (Common Encapsulation Considerations) should add a > sub-section on the consideration of traversing