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

7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation Thanks for the references. But out of all the switching asics, which are arguably the most constrained in terms parsing flexibility and need for performance, how many support arbitrary tlvs push/pop? Geneve in its most

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

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Jesse Gross wrote: > Sure, probably all of the hardware implementations have some limits on their > ability to handle the full breadth of Geneve options. Geneve was > intentionally designed to be very future proof and support limits beyond > what

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

Herbert, Pankaj Garg, "nvo3@ietf.org<mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>", "Manish Kumar (manishkr)", Dino Farinacci, Lucy yong Subject: Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation Thanks for the references. But out of all the switching

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

I am delighted to see this discussion about evaluating the benefits and concerns on the different encapsulations. I would really prefer to see the NVO3 WG to have some serious discussion at a minimum. Regards, Alia On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:32 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: > >>

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

turday, 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 up on Pankaj’s mention of ecosystem

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

; Pankaj > > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 10:11 AM >> To: Manish Kumar (manishkr) <manis...@cisco.com> >> Cc: Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com>; Lucy Yong >

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

gt;; Lucy Yong <lucy.y...@huawei.com>; > nvo3@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using > Generic Routing Encapsulation > > > [PG] I don't think GUE provides flexibility that is needed for future > encapsulation. Network virtualizatio

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

gt;; Lucy Yong <lucy.y...@huawei.com>; > nvo3@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using > Generic Routing Encapsulation > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Pankaj Garg <pank...@microsoft.com> > wrote: > > Inline. > > >

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

May be my >> personal >>>> opinion >>>>> but I haven’t seen anything otherwise yet. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Manish >>>>> >>>>> On 06/10/15 10:15 pm, "Tom Herbert" <t...@

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

>> Cc: Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com>; Manish Kumar (manishkr) >> <manis...@cisco.com>; Lucy Yong <lucy.y...@huawei.com>; >> nvo3@ietf.org >> 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

> [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

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

e (nvo3 group) picks up one option out of the three > "future" encap as the standard option to avoid unnecessary fragmentation and > engineering overhead. > > > > Thanks > > Pankaj > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message- > >> Fr

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

From: nvo3 on behalf of Pankaj Garg Date: Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:17 AM To: Tom Herbert Cc: "nvo3@ietf.org<mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>", "Manish Kumar (manishkr)", Dino Farinacci, Lucy yong Subject: Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Gene

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

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

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

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

> 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] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation

gt;; Lucy Yong <lucy.y...@huawei.com>; > nvo3@ietf.org > Subject: 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

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

October 29, 2015 2:10 PM To: Dino Farinacci; Manish Kumar (manishkr) Cc: Tom Herbert; Lucy yong; nvo3@ietf.org Subject: RE: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation NVGRE and VXLAN NVGRE is widely used in datacenter networks and there is wide hardwa

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

gt;; Lucy Yong <lucy.y...@huawei.com>; > nvo3@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using > Generic Routing Encapsulation > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Pankaj Garg <pank...@microsoft.com> > wrote: > > Inli

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

gt;; Lucy Yong <lucy.y...@huawei.com>; > nvo3@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using > Generic Routing Encapsulation > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Pankaj Garg <pank...@microsoft.com> > wrote: > > Inli

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

soft.com> >> Cc: Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com>; Manish Kumar (manishkr) >> <manis...@cisco.com>; Lucy Yong <lucy.y...@huawei.com>; >> nvo3@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using >> Generic Routing Encapsul

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

> >> >> Lucy >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Pankaj Garg [mailto:pank...@microsoft.com] >> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 2:10 PM >> To: Dino Farinacci; Manish Kumar (manishkr) >> Cc: Tom Herbert; Lucy yong; nvo3@ietf.org >> Subjec

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

e standard option to avoid unnecessary > fragmentation and engineering overhead. > > Thanks > Pankaj > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 10:11 AM > > To: M

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

Kumar (manishkr) <manis...@cisco.com>; > nvo3@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using > Generic Routing Encapsulation > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Lucy yong <lucy.y...@huawei.com> wrote: > >> > >> &q

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

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

not familiar with those. > >Thanks >Pankaj > >> -Original Message- >> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@herbertland.com] >> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 12:38 PM >> To: Pankaj Garg <pank...@microsoft.com> >> Cc: nvo3@ietf.org >> Subject: Re:

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

Subject: Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation Hi Tom, Pankaj, The usage of the UDP header in such encapsulations is mostly for entropy (load-balancing), aid NAT traversal, etc. This indirectly makes the transport believe that the packet

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

; nvo3@ietf.org Subject: Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Lucy yong <lucy.y...@huawei.com> wrote: > Hi Manish, > > I agree with you. > > GRE/UDP encapsulation protocol can apply to the Intern

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

October 1, 2015 12:38 PM > To: Pankaj Garg <pank...@microsoft.com> > Cc: nvo3@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using > Generic Routing Encapsulation > > Hi Pankaj, > > Do you think there is any value, intent, or issue

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

Hi Pankaj, Do you think there is any value, intent, or issue for doing NVGRE/UDP (via https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-07) Tom On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Pankaj Garg wrote: > FYI, NVGRE is published as an information RFC 7637. Your

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

FYI, NVGRE is published as an information RFC 7637. Your documents that reference NVGRE, please use this RFC number. Thanks Pankaj > To: ietf-announce at ietf.org, rfc-dist at rfc-editor.org > Subject: RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing > Encapsulation > From: