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

On 10/8/2016 10:43 AM, Greg Mirsky wrote: > Hi Joe, > I think that he task of OAM interworking between two NVO3 domains that > use different dataplane encapsulations would be much simpler if their > respective OAM are compliant to the same comprehensive set of > requirements. As I noted, there

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

...@huawei.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Sam wrote: As a user, would like to see technical justification for the >>>>>> existence of 3 encap types, as opposed to business justification you >>>>>> mentioned in previous email. &g

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

:20 AM, Lucy yong <lucy.y...@huawei.com> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Sam wrote: As a user, would like to see technical justification for > the > >>>>> existence of 3 encap types, as opposed to business justification you > >>>&

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

ioned in previous email. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> IMO: This is not a valid statement to judge the existence of 3 encaps >>>>> types. From any single user perspective, he/she only needs one >>>>> encapsulation >>

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

If they are "ships in the night" it doesn't matter. If they interconnect, you either have to know how to translate between these to sets of capabilities or fail. Using the common subset of the two means turning off some of the features, which avoids translation failures only if it can be

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

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote: > Tom, > > I think your note summarizes perfectly why we need to move forward with 3 > encapsulations. Some things matter more to you than they do to me. If we > start calling for consensus on every one of these

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

>>> encapsulation type. However, in this area, there are many and many users >>>> (or say different DC applications, e.g. cloud, Big data, IoT, etc), which >>>> apparently have different technical requirements. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>&g

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

On 10/6/2016 1:24 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: > It would be very helpful to have more reviews and discussion of the > issues with each document and thoughts about implications as they fit > into a system larger than a common-encap data-center. I would welcome > more good technical conversation. The

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

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote: > Sam, > > My lack of interest in a new encap is because I think it's too late to > converge them. At this point, there are business issues (as opposed to > technical ones) that would limit the effectiveness of a new

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

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > > > On 10/6/2016 11:38 AM, Alia Atlas wrote: > > > > >> (1) Publish all 3 encapsulations as Informational RFCs. This makes the >> working group look indecisive but at least the vendors can go to market >> with what they

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

Dino, On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: > > Absolutely! I heard quite clearly at the last IETF that there is > general desire for NVO3 to pick a single encapsulation. While the > sentiments on the list have been more strongly for just publishing >

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

ols to meet different technical >> requirements; WG publishes all three and requires each of them specify the >> protocol applicability with current specified features. >> >> >> >> Lucy >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-b

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

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > > > On 10/6/2016 8:34 AM, Sam Aldrin wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > >> >> The original email did propose that we continue to evaluate existing >> encapsulations, but NOT that they

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

On 10/6/2016 8:34 AM, Sam Aldrin wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Joe Touch > wrote: > > > The original email did propose that we continue to evaluate > existing encapsulations, but NOT that they be taken out of the WG > and published

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

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > > > On 10/5/2016 6:16 PM, Sam Aldrin wrote: > > These could be independent informational docs instead. That's common for >> de-facto industry standards already deployed, as long as they don't >> *interfere* with WG efforts or

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

tober 4, 2016 at 7:04 PM To: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" <matthew.bo...@nokia.com<mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>> Cc: NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org<mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] Discussion on encapsulation formats and next steps Dear Matthew, Sam, et. al, I thi

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

#3 Sam already mentioned. I think we need no action. As you said, if the authors want to publish them as individual submissions, they are free to do so and get RFC numbers anyway. After VXLAN? Why not use ILA? Regards, Behcet On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Anoop Ghanwani

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

with current specified features. Lucy From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sam Aldrin Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 9:02 PM To: Anoop Ghanwani Cc: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB); NVO3 Subject: Re: [nvo3] Discussion on encapsulation formats and next steps Anoop, Comments

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

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Sam Aldrin wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Anoop Ghanwani > wrote: > >> >> If all 3 encaps are willing to address the concern, then we end up with 6 >> encaps. Which will we pick then? >> > RFC7282 >

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

Anoop, On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote: > Sam, > > Sam, > > How are the encapsulations supposed to address technical concerns of the > nature "too hard to implement", especially when implementations already > exist? > >From various conversations, the

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

Sam, Sam, How are the encapsulations supposed to address technical concerns of the nature "too hard to implement", especially when implementations already exist? One can always add extensions to those proposals to address the other concerns (e.g. VNI not secure, insufficient extensibility,

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

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > > > On 10/5/2016 12:02 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Sam Aldrin > wrote: > > ...> I personally do not think WG should just *stamp RFC for drafts

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

On 10/5/2016 12:02 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Sam Aldrin wrote: >> ... >> > I personally do not think WG should just *stamp RFC for drafts because of >> > business reasons. >> > > +1 Agreed, but the WG need not do that. These could be

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

Joe, Inline with my comments as individual. On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > Hi, all, > > > On 10/5/2016 10:29 AM, Sam Aldrin wrote: > > As I said in one my earlier emails, if new encap proposals are not > > converging on resolving issues, why don't we just

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

See inline. From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sam Aldrin Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 1:11 PM To: Fedyk, Don Cc: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB); Anoop Ghanwani; NVO3 Subject: Re: [nvo3] Discussion on encapsulation formats and next steps Don, VXLAN didn't go through WG

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

Hi Joe, my $.02 in-line and tagged GIM>>. Regards, Greg On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > Hi, all, > > > On 10/5/2016 10:29 AM, Sam Aldrin wrote: > > As I said in one my earlier emails, if new encap proposals are not > > converging on resolving issues, why

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

lto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Sam Aldrin > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 05, 2016 1:29 PM > *To:* Anoop Ghanwani <an...@alumni.duke.edu> > *Cc:* Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <matthew.bo...@nokia.com>; NVO3 < > nvo3@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [nvo3] Discussion on enc

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

Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <matthew.bo...@nokia.com>; NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [nvo3] Discussion on encapsulation formats and next steps Anoop, As I said in one my earlier emails, if new encap proposals are not converging on resolving issues, why don't we just live with ex

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

Anoop, As I said in one my earlier emails, if new encap proposals are not converging on resolving issues, why don't we just live with existing encaps like VXLAN etc? Why would making these RFC'es is important by standards body, when it is about business rather than technical ones? Backward

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

Agree with Anoop. Dino > On Oct 5, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote: > > Sam, > > My lack of interest in a new encap is because I think it's too late to > converge them. At this point, there are business issues (as opposed to > technical ones) that would limit

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

Sam, My lack of interest in a new encap is because I think it's too late to converge them. At this point, there are business issues (as opposed to technical ones) that would limit the effectiveness of a new encap. At best it's a no-op, at worst it creates even more confusion in the market while

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

Anoop, Couple of questions, if I may ask 1. How do you plan to address technical objections raised? 2. Not interested because it is too late and would rather live with any deficiencies in the DP proposals? -sam On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote: >

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

Hi Fabio, It would be nice to have ONE encap which could ensure that it meets various requirements of network, which were discussed at length over the course of NVo3 WG. As raised by many on the list, there were technical objections raised for each of the encap. Making a doc an informational RFC

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

Thanks, Greg, noted. -sam On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: > Dear Matthew, Sam, et. al, > I think that concentrating on the proposal to "focus on control plane and > OAM" we can achieve practical results despite differences among data plane >

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

Dear Matthew, Sam, et. al, I think that concentrating on the proposal to "focus on control plane and OAM" we can achieve practical results despite differences among data plane encapsulations. Please count me in. Regards, Greg On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <

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

Matthew (Nokia - GB) > Cc: NVO3 > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Discussion on encapsulation formats and next steps > > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) > <matthew.bo...@nokia.com> wrote: > > > > Unfortunately, no rough consensus emerged from t

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

> Dino, > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: > You said nothing about making a decision. I propose a decision be announced > at Seoul IETF. > > Which decision are you looking for? Flip a coin & pick one? Pick one. Based on the description text it

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] Discussion on encapsulation formats and next steps

+1. Linda From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Anoop Ghanwani Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 1:48 PM To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) Cc: NVO3 Subject: Re: [nvo3] Discussion on encapsulation formats and next steps On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB

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

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) < matthew.bo...@nokia.com> wrote: > > > Unfortunately, no rough consensus emerged from the list discussion. > > The chairs and our AD have also been trying to form a design team to take > forward the encapsulation discussion and see if

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

) have different objectives, which does not converge now. Lucy From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 1:32 PM To: Dino Farinacci Cc: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB); NVO3 Subject: Re: [nvo3] Discussion on encapsulation formats and next steps

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

Hi, all, On 10/4/2016 11:32 AM, Alia Atlas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Dino Farinacci > wrote: > > You said nothing about making a decision. I propose a decision be > announced at Seoul IETF. > > > Which decision are you

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

Dino, On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: > You said nothing about making a decision. I propose a decision be > announced at Seoul IETF. Which decision are you looking for? Flip a coin & pick one? Picking an encapsulation despite the technical

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

You said nothing about making a decision. I propose a decision be announced at Seoul IETF. Dino > On Oct 4, 2016, at 2:24 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) > wrote: > > > Folks, > > Following the lengthy discussion on this list about the pros and cons of the > three