On 01/03/14 22:28, Tom Herbert wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Anton Ivanov (antivano)
antiv...@cisco.com wrote:
Hi Tom,
Based on your comments you have not followed the discussion. I think it will
be good if you go through the thread in the archive.
This discussion is about geneve
Hi all,
I just finished reading this draft.
I am going to ignore the caption under the diagram at this point - it
does not match to the diagram and neither does the rest of the draft (we
will come back to it later).
So, first and foremost, the diagram. I actually really like it. It is
very
To: nvo3@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 2:30:15 AM
Subject: [nvo3] Draft Geneve
Hi all,
I just finished reading this draft.
I am going to ignore the caption under the diagram at this point - it
does not match to the diagram and neither does the rest of the draft (we
will come back
. There is no need for yet another unoriginal encapsulation.
A.
Cheers,
Brad
- Original Message -
From: Anton Ivanov (antivano) antiv...@cisco.com
To: nvo3@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 2:30:15 AM
Subject: [nvo3] Draft Geneve
Hi all,
I just finished reading this draft.
I am
to the next.
Cheers,
Brad
- Original Message -
From: Anton Ivanov (antivano) antiv...@cisco.com
To: Brad Hedlund bhedl...@vmware.com
Cc: nvo3@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 8:40:51 AM
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Draft Geneve
On 28/02/14 14:14, Brad Hedlund wrote:
The diagram in the Geneve
) }
A.
Cheers,
Brad
- Original Message -
From: Anton Ivanov (antivano) antiv...@cisco.com
To: Brad Hedlund bhedl...@vmware.com
Cc: nvo3@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 8:40:51 AM
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Draft Geneve
On 28/02/14 14:14, Brad Hedlund wrote:
The diagram
[mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brad Hedlund
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 8:39 PM
To: Anton Ivanov (antivano)
Cc: nvo3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Draft Geneve
The Geneve draft proposes a 24-bit VNI, in addition to 32-bits of Variable
Length Options.
Those later 32 bits can
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Draft Geneve
On 28/02/14 14:14, Brad Hedlund wrote:
The diagram in the Geneve draft depicts tunnels terminating on both
virtual switches in a Hypervisor, as well as physical switches
connecting to non-virtual physical hosts.
As such, the later brings the physical hosts
Of Ken Gray (kegray)
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 9:48 PM
To: Brad Hedlund; Anton Ivanov (antivano)
Cc: nvo3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Draft Geneve
That work (chaining and metadata) is already being addressed in the SFC
workgroup by charter. At the very least, the draft should move if that's
: nvo3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Draft Geneve
That work (chaining and metadata) is already being addressed in the SFC
workgroup by charter. At the very least, the draft should move if that's
it's primary thrust. In that work, there is no coupling between the header
for forwarding
Garg
Cc: Ken Gray (kegray); Brad Hedlund; nvo3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Draft Geneve
On 28/02/14 16:26, Pankaj Garg wrote:
Geneve options are not specific to service chaining, though a service chain
blob can be one of the option in Geneve header. So it does belongs to network
be a no then :)
A.
-Original Message-
From: Anton Ivanov (antivano) [mailto:antiv...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 10:20 PM
To: Pankaj Garg
Cc: Ken Gray (kegray); Brad Hedlund; nvo3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Draft Geneve
On 28/02/14 16:26, Pankaj Garg wrote:
Geneve
@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Draft Geneve
On 28/02/14 16:57, Pankaj Garg wrote:
We can discuss merits of Geneve vs VXLAN vs NVGRE vs STT vs L2TPV3 vs Name
your favorite protocol when it comes to standardization for network
virtualization.
I already said what I had to say here
Of Anton Ivanov (antivano)
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 11:17 PM
To: nvo3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Draft Geneve
On 28/02/14 16:57, Pankaj Garg wrote:
We can discuss merits of Geneve vs VXLAN vs NVGRE vs STT vs L2TPV3 vs Name
your favorite protocol when it comes to standardization
...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Anton Ivanov
(antivano)
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 11:17 PM
To: nvo3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Draft Geneve
On 28/02/14 16:57, Pankaj Garg wrote:
We can discuss merits of Geneve vs VXLAN vs NVGRE vs STT vs L2TPV3 vs
Name your favorite protocol when
28, 2014 11:17 PM
To: nvo3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Draft Geneve
On 28/02/14 16:57, Pankaj Garg wrote:
We can discuss merits of Geneve vs VXLAN vs NVGRE vs STT vs L2TPV3 vs
Name your favorite protocol when it comes to standardization for network
virtualization.
I already said what
16 matches
Mail list logo
