Re: [nvo3] Looking help for vxlan-gpe

Yang, I must have missed your email. Sorry about that. The syntax looks conform to what is specified in the draft to me. Fabio From: nvo3 on behalf of 杨光 Date: Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 7:06 PM To: "nvo3@ietf.org" Subject: [nvo3] Looking help for vxlan-gpe I hope to get the some help for

Re: [nvo3] Shim header of vxlan-gpe

Hi Remy, Thanks for your comments. See my notes below. I’ll include this discussion in Monday’s presentation as well. From: "Liubing (Remy)" Date: Friday, October 25, 2019 at 6:01 PM To: Fabio Maino , Lizhong Jin , "draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-...@ietf.org" Cc: "d

Re: [nvo3] Shim header of vxlan-gpe

-nvo3-vxlan-...@ietf.org" Cc: "draft-lemon-vxlan-lisp-gpe-...@ietf.org" , "nvo3@ietf.org" Subject: Shim header of vxlan-gpe Resent-From: Resent-To: Fabio Maino , Larry Kreeger , Resent-Date: Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 7:29 PM Hi GPE authors, I recently review the

Re: [nvo3] NVO3 Virtual Interim details

Matthew, Sam, as part of the encaps design team charter agenda item, can we discuss inclusion in the deliverables of a draft that clearly articulates the shortcomings of the proposed encapsulation, as per my email to the list of 10/20? Thanks, Fabio On 10/24/16 2:40 AM, Bocci, Matthew

Re: [nvo3] Discussion on encapsulation formats and next steps

Matthew, Sam, as it was mentioned in other posts some of the encapsulations you list below are implemented and being deployed as we speak. We have an opportunity to learn, from those real life deployments, what are the requirements that needs to be addressed, especially with regard to how

Re: [nvo3] Security in VXLAN-GPE (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

Actually recomposing the VXLAN/LISP splitting was another design goal of VXLAN-GPE. A VXLAN-GPE implementation can share most of its code with a LISP implementation, contributing to the reduction of test and implementation cost. Fabio On 8/5/16 9:21 AM, Jesse Gross wrote: On Aug 5, 2016,

Re: [nvo3] Security in VXLAN-GPE (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

On 8/3/16 4:34 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Fabio Maino <fma...@cisco.com> wrote: On 8/3/16 3:38 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Fabio Maino <fma...@cisco.com> wrote: On 8/1/16 4:21 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at

Re: [nvo3] Security in VXLAN-GPE (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

On 8/1/16 4:21 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com <mailto:t...@herbertland.com>> wrote: On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Fabio Maino <fma...@cisco.com <mailto:fma...@cisco.com>> wrote: > On 7/29/16

Re: [nvo3] Security in VXLAN-GPE (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

On 7/29/16 6:38 PM, Jesse Gross wrote: On Jul 29, 2016, at 4:39 PM, Fabio Maino <fma...@cisco.com> wrote: On 7/29/16 12:44 PM, Jesse Gross wrote: On Jul 29, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Fabio Maino <fma...@cisco.com> wrote: On 7/29/16 11:45 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: On Jul 29, 2016 11:12 AM,

Re: [nvo3] Security in VXLAN-GPE (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

On 7/29/16 12:44 PM, Jesse Gross wrote: On Jul 29, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Fabio Maino <fma...@cisco.com> wrote: On 7/29/16 11:45 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: On Jul 29, 2016 11:12 AM, "Fabio Maino" <fma...@cisco.com> wrote: On 7/27/16 1:43 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: On Wed, Jul 27,

Re: [nvo3] Consensus call on encap proposals

On 7/22/16 9:47 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: On Jul 22, 2016 11:44 AM, "Tom Herbert" > wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2016 3:38 AM, "Dino Farinacci" > wrote: > > > > > - VXLAN-GPE does not appear compatible

Re: [nvo3] Security in VXLAN-GPE (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

On 7/27/16 1:43 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Fabio Maino <fma...@cisco.com> wrote: On 7/27/16 12:27 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Fabio Maino <fma...@cisco.com> wrote: On 7/27/16 10:53 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2

Re: [nvo3] Consensus call on encap proposals

On 7/27/16 12:27 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Fabio Maino <fma...@cisco.com> wrote: On 7/27/16 10:53 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: On Jul 26, 2016, at 3:11 PM, Fabio Maino (

Re: [nvo3] Consensus call on encap proposals

On 7/27/16 10:53 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: On Jul 26, 2016, at 3:11 PM, Fabio Maino (fmaino) <fma...@cisco.com> wrote: On 7/26/16 12:08 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: Having VXLAN as an Independent Stre

Re: [nvo3] Consensus call on encap proposals

On 7/26/16 12:08 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: Having VXLAN as an Independent Stream RFC gives a document to be used to innovate from. I believe that was the intent of VXLAN-GPE - to provide the ability for needed extensions. The only new feature the VXLAN-GPE brings to the table is a way to

Re: [nvo3] the role of a standard (was: Consensus call on moving forward with a single encap.)

standards-track basis for additional work. Informational will be fine. We dealt half a decade with VXLAN and NVGRE as a draft, getting quickly to an informational RFC would be a good step forward. Fabio Regards, Alia On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Fabio Maino <fma...@cisco.

Re: [nvo3] Consensus call on encap proposals

On 7/25/16 8:52 AM, Jesse Gross wrote: I believe that others are in a similar position but opposite with regards to technical choices. The net result is that there are almost certain to be multiple formats in the wild regardless of what is decided here. Yes, that means letting the market

Re: [nvo3] the role of a standard (was: Consensus call on moving forward with a single encap.)

encapsulations for backwards compatibility would be useful; it does increase complexity of the solution. Having multiple encapsulations multiplies the complexity for everything on top. Regards, Alia On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Fabio Maino <fma...@cisco.com <mailto:fma...@cisco.com>> wr

Re: [nvo3] the role of a standard (was: Consensus call on moving forward with a single encap.)

I think Uri makes an important point when he says that adding a 4th encapsulation will compound the problem rather than solving it, especially considering where the HW/SW implementations are today. IMO this WG should focus on designing a control plane that allows to discover and select the

Re: [nvo3] Mail regarding NVO3 data plane drafts

I support option #1. Fabio On 7/14/16 6:21 PM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) wrote: WG, The NVO3 working group has adopted three data plane encapsulations: - VXLAN-GPE, - Geneve, - GUE (although the draft is moving to the Intarea WG, we anticipate that NVO3 will

Re: [nvo3] Comments on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-03

On 7/28/14, 8:08 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: Allowing the reserved bits in the header to be ignored on receive limits the usefulness in that new bits that are defined can only be advisory and not fundamentally change interpretation of the packet. I agree with your statement in the 2nd half but not

Re: [nvo3] Comments on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-03

Of Lucy yong Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:00 PM To: Fabio Maino; Dino Farinacci Cc: nvo3@ietf.org Subject: Re: [nvo3] Comments on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-03 If GPE is the VXLAN evolution, why it request a new UDP port? If GPE is a new protocol, why it has to align

Re: [nvo3] Comments on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-03

machinery, complexity, and combinations that will frustrate customers (not to mention vendor call centers). Less entropy please, Dino On Jul 15, 2014, at 10:51 PM, Fabio Maino fma...@cisco.com wrote: Dino, I believe that using a format that can share as much as possible with the two protocols

Re: [nvo3] Comments on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-03

) header the same. Fabio Linda -Original Message- From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dino Farinacci Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:05 PM To: Fabio Maino Cc: nvo3@ietf.org Subject: Re: [nvo3] Comments on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-03 Well

Re: [nvo3] Comments on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-03

, and combinations that will frustrate customers (not to mention vendor call centers). Less entropy please, Dino On Jul 15, 2014, at 10:51 PM, Fabio Maino fma...@cisco.com wrote: Dino, I believe that using a format that can share as much as possible with the two protocols deployed today will give

Re: [nvo3] Comments on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-03

On 7/16/14, 6:27 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: On Jul 16, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Fabio Maino fma...@cisco.com wrote: But since we're respinning HW and SW to add one feature, in 2 different implementations, why don't we use this chance to converge to a single encap that can be extended to do

Re: [nvo3] Comments on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-03

Tom, one of the design goals of GPE is to be cost effective when implemented together with VXLAN and LISP. We do know that those are the two most deployed protocols out there, and will be out there for quite some time while any other network virtualization protocol gets deployed. I believe

Re: [nvo3] Comments on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-03

Dino, I believe that using a format that can share as much as possible with the two protocols deployed today will give a better chance to GPE to be implemented, as vendors may want a cost effective way to migrate to the new protocol while preserving compatibility with legacy implementations.

Re: [nvo3] draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-00 backwards compatibility

On 3/26/14, 5:23 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Fabio Maino fma...@cisco.com wrote: Tom, I think we're back to where this conversation started: definition of use cases. Why the vni authentication tag you're proposing couldn't be part of a metadata header? The network

Re: [nvo3] draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-00 backwards compatibility

Tom, I think we're back to where this conversation started: definition of use cases. Why the vni authentication tag you're proposing couldn't be part of a metadata header? The network may be able and willing to use the vni for routing, but won't certainly be able to use the vni

Re: [nvo3] draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-00 backwards compatibility

On 3/25/14, 8:10 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: Tom, please note that the VXLAN-GPE draft says that a GPE device must not send non-ethernet frames to a VXLAN device (Section 4.2), exactly to avoid the problem you describe. Unfortunately, that requirement conflicts with the robustness principle. In a

Re: [nvo3] [lisp] New Version Notification for draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-00.txt

Hi Noel, there's certainly no intention of keeping this out of the LISP WG, since this is not part of the charter we just thought an individual submission was more appropriate. We just started from the very practical consideration of the proliferation of encapsulations in the data center,

Re: [nvo3] [lisp] New Version Notification for draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-00.txt

On 9/25/13 12:03 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: Hi Noel, there's certainly no intention of keeping this out of the LISP WG, since this is not part of the charter we just thought an individual submission was more appropriate. We just started from the very practical consideration of the

Re: [nvo3] Poll for adoption and IPR check: draft-gbclt-nvo3-gap-analysis-00.txt

I think this a good template for an nvo3 gap analysis, however it should include LISP [RFC6830] in the list of initial candidate technologies. Provided LISP is added to the list, I'd be supporting adoption (...and yes, I'm willing to contribute text). Thanks, Fabio On 9/6/13 6:57 AM,

[nvo3] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01.txt

22:41:50 -0700 From: internet-dra...@ietf.org To: fma...@cisco.com CC: michs...@insiemenetworks.com, d...@cisco.com, verma...@cisco.com A new version of I-D, draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Fabio Maino and posted to the IETF repository. Filename

Re: [nvo3] Poll for WG adoption: draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-03.txt

support. Fabio On 8/29/12 9:01 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) wrote: This email begins a poll to help gauge consensus to adopt draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-03.txt as an NVO3 working group document. Since this is the second call for adoption, and only a few changes were requested during the