Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00

roadcom.com> Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 4:02 PM To: Anoop Ghanwani <an...@alumni.duke.edu>, Larry Kreeger <kree...@cisco.com> Cc: "Sandeep Kumar (Sandeep) Relan" <sre...@broadcom.com>, "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [nvo

Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00

ani; Sandeep Kumar > (Sandeep) Relan; nvo3@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00 > > Agree. Especially since this would have to be signalled in the reverse > direction. There is no need to add it in the the datapath. > > On BGP-e

Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00

See inline below. From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Anoop Ghanwani Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 12:22 AM To: Larry Kreeger (kreeger) Cc: Sandeep Kumar (Sandeep) Relan; nvo3@ietf.org; Shahram Davari Subject: Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00

Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00

> What we may want to say, then, is that if a P bit of 0 is used then none of > the other flags must be set. This would prevent someone from generating a > packet with a P bit of 0 and trying to use new GPE features. > > [Lucy] The P bit is used for version purpose too. The rule is if the GPE >

Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00

> undefined >>>>> when P-bit=0 and should be ignored. Likewise, I do not see any reason >>>>> to >>>>> define Next Protocol = 0 to indicate an Ethernet payload (the current >>>>> draft >>>>> has NP=0 as reserved, an

Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00

y Kreeger (kreeger); Sandeep Kumar (Sandeep) >Relan; nvo3@ietf.org; Shahram Davari >Subject: Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00 > >> What we may want to say, then, is that if a P bit of 0 is used then >> none of the other flags must be set. This wou

Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00

Larry, On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Larry Kreeger (kreeger) wrote: > > > If I can restate what I think you two agree on, it is: If VXLAN evolves > independently from VXLAN GPE, then a VXLAN GPE endpoint that understands > only how to be backward compatible with RFC7348

Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00

Larry > > From: "Sandeep Kumar (Sandeep) Relan" <sre...@broadcom.com> > Date: Monday, September 21, 2015 at 7:28 PM > To: "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org> > Cc: Shahram Davari <dav...@broadcom.com>, Larry Kreeger <kree...@cisco.com > > >

Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00

.@gmail.com> [mailto:ghanw...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Anoop Ghanwani Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 3:16 PM To: Larry Kreeger (kreeger) Cc: Sandeep Kumar (Sandeep) Relan; nvo3@ietf.org<mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>; Shahram Davari Subject: Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3

Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00

Kreeger (kreeger) Cc: Sandeep Kumar (Sandeep) Relan; nvo3@ietf.org; Shahram Davari Subject: Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00 Hi Larry, Perhaps Sandeep's question can be framed another way: Is it legal for a VXLAN-GPE implementation to accept/terminate tunneled packets

Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00

Cc: "Sandeep Kumar (Sandeep) Relan" <sre...@broadcom.com<mailto:sre...@broadcom.com>>, "nvo3@ietf.org<mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>" <nvo3@ietf.org<mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>>, Shahram Davari <dav...@broadcom.com<mailto:dav...@broadcom.com>&g

Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00

bits and 8 bits): MUST be set to >>zero >> on transmission and ignored on receipt." >> >> Thanks, Larry >> >> >> From: Shahram Davari <dav...@broadcom.com> >> Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 4:02 PM >> To: Anoop Ghanwani <an...@a

Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00

"Reserved fields (24 bits and 8 bits): MUST be set to >>> zero >>> on transmission and ignored on receipt." >>> >>> Thanks, Larry >>> >>> >>> From: Shahram Davari <dav...@broadcom.com> >>> Date: Wednesday, September 2

Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00

sday, September 23, 2015 at 3:16 PM > To: Larry Kreeger <kree...@cisco.com> > Cc: "Sandeep Kumar (Sandeep) Relan" <sre...@broadcom.com>, "nvo3@ietf.org" > <nvo3@ietf.org>, Shahram Davari <dav...@broadcom.com> > > Subject: Re: [nvo3]

Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00

t;kree...@cisco.com<mailto:kree...@cisco.com>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00 Hello Larry, I did see Section 5 on backward compatibility guidelines. Still. I am not sure - why disrupt the VXLAN header format compatibility with RFC 7348, for the Et

Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00

3-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Sandeep Kumar (Sandeep) Relan" <sre...@broadcom.com<mailto:sre...@broadcom.com>> Date: Monday, September 21, 2015 at 4:24 PM To: "nvo3@ietf.org<mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>" <nvo3@ietf.org<mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>>

Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00

Relan; nvo3@ietf.org Subject: Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00 VXLAN as define in RFC 7348 does not have a version field! It was added in VXLAN GPE. This is another reason to use a new UDP port, since VXLAN VTEPs will be ignoring this new version field! - Larry F

Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00

ilto:nvo3@ietf.org>> Cc: Shahram Davari <dav...@broadcom.com<mailto:dav...@broadcom.com>>, Larry Kreeger <kree...@cisco.com<mailto:kree...@cisco.com>> Subject: RE: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00 Hello Larry ! Thanks for the detailed explanation

Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00

.org>" <nvo3@ietf.org<mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>> Subject: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00 Hello, Concern/Query : What is the need to have another Destination UDP port number ? Reference : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00 (VXLAN - GPE) This draft

Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00

v...@broadcom.com<mailto:dav...@broadcom.com>>, Larry Kreeger <kree...@cisco.com<mailto:kree...@cisco.com>> Subject: RE: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00 Hello Larry ! Thanks for the detailed explanation. Now, I see a duplication (or maybe a conflict) betwe

[nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00

Hello, Concern/Query : What is the need to have another Destination UDP port number ? Reference : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00 (VXLAN - GPE) This draft mentions that : IANA has assigned the value 4790 for the VXLAN-GPE UDP port. Further, this draft specifies: P Bit: Flag bit 5