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

2016-10-06 Thread Behcet Sarikaya
#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

2016-10-06 Thread Alia Atlas
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

2016-10-06 Thread Tom Herbert
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

2016-10-06 Thread Anoop Ghanwani
Hi Alia, Please see inline. Anoop On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Alia Atlas wrote: > Anoop, > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Anoop Ghanwani > wrote: > >> Alia, >> >> The obvious way to handle multiple DCs with different encap is to use a >>

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

2016-10-06 Thread Joe Touch
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

2016-10-06 Thread Alia Atlas
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

2016-10-06 Thread Anoop Ghanwani
Alia, The obvious way to handle multiple DCs with different encap is to use a gateway. The simplest gateway would terminate one encap domain and start another. OAM, etc. would work within a domain. To work across domains, OAM would have to be run at a higher layer. This is not too much

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

2016-10-06 Thread Tom Herbert
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

2016-10-06 Thread Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)
Hi Sam, Please count me in for OAM. It will help to have the Overlay OAM work aligned. Thanks, Nagendra From: nvo3 > on behalf of Greg Mirsky > Date: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:04 PM To:

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

2016-10-06 Thread Sam Aldrin
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

2016-10-06 Thread Lucy yong
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. IMO: This is not a valid statement to judge the existence of 3 encaps types. From any single user perspective, he/she only

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

2016-10-06 Thread Sam Aldrin
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

2016-10-06 Thread Joe Touch
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