Re: [nvo3] AD review of draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06

Hi David, On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Black, David wrote: > Hi Alia, > > > > > I will optimistically send this document to IETF Last Call - but the > authors do need to update this section and respond to my other concerns. > > > > Thanks for doing this. Regarding your

Re: [nvo3] Security in VXLAN-GPE (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

> On Jul 29, 2016, at 4:39 PM, Fabio Maino wrote: > > On 7/29/16 12:44 PM, Jesse Gross wrote: >>> On Jul 29, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Fabio Maino wrote: >>> >>> On 7/29/16 11:45 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: On Jul 29, 2016 11:12 AM, "Fabio Maino"

Re: [nvo3] GUE extensibility (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

> On Jul 29, 2016, at 6:02 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: > Anyway, I suppose we can agree that extensibility is a strong > requirement, but we'll have to agree to disagree on what form > extensibility should take and how much an encapsulation protocol > should allow! Yes, I think

Re: [nvo3] GUE extensibility (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Jesse Gross wrote: > >> On Jul 29, 2016, at 5:16 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >> >>> The only thing that I can say is that over the past several years since the >>> protocol was defined our experience with this tradeoff has

Re: [nvo3] GUE extensibility (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

> On Jul 29, 2016, at 5:16 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: > >> The only thing that I can say is that over the past several years since the >> protocol was defined our experience with this tradeoff has been pretty good. >> Both the number of uses of Geneve and implementations

Re: [nvo3] GUE extensibility (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

> The only thing that I can say is that over the past several years since the > protocol was defined our experience with this tradeoff has been pretty good. > Both the number of uses of Geneve and implementations have increased and as > time has gone on, the uses have take more advantage of the

Re: [nvo3] GUE extensibility (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

> On Jul 29, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Jesse Gross wrote: >> >>> On Jul 29, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >>> As a hypothetical question, how would you handle a

Re: [nvo3] Security in VXLAN-GPE (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

On 7/29/16 12:44 PM, Jesse Gross wrote: On Jul 29, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Fabio Maino wrote: On 7/29/16 11:45 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: On Jul 29, 2016 11:12 AM, "Fabio Maino" wrote: On 7/27/16 1:43 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Fabio

Re: [nvo3] AD review of draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06

Hi Alia, > I will optimistically send this document to IETF Last Call - but the authors > do need to update this section and respond to my other concerns. Thanks for doing this. Regarding your Major concern: > i) I note that draft-ashwood-nvo3-operational-requirement-03 expired about 3 >

[nvo3] Last Call: (An Architecture for Data Center Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3)) to Informational RFC

The IESG has received a request from the Network Virtualization Overlays WG (nvo3) to consider the following document: - 'An Architecture for Data Center Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3)' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final

Re: [nvo3] GUE extensibility (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Jesse Gross wrote: > >> On Jul 29, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >> >>> As a hypothetical question, how would you handle a situation where the >>> security token you have defined for GUE is shown to be broken and

[nvo3] AD review of draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06

First, I would like to thank the authors, David, Jon, Larry, Marc, and Thomas, for their work on this draft and pushing it to completion. As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06 before progressing it. I do apologize for the delay in my review; I had a lot of

Re: [nvo3] GUE extensibility (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

> On Jul 29, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: > >> As a hypothetical question, how would you handle a situation where the >> security token you have defined for GUE is shown to be broken and needs to >> be replaced with a new option? I’m sure that in that case, you

Re: [nvo3] GUE extensibility (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

> As a hypothetical question, how would you handle a situation where the > security token you have defined for GUE is shown to be broken and needs to be > replaced with a new option? I’m sure that in that case, you would feel the > need to react immediately. It seems like the two choices would

Re: [nvo3] Security in VXLAN-GPE (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Jesse Gross wrote: > >> On Jul 29, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Fabio Maino wrote: >> >> On 7/29/16 11:45 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: >>> On Jul 29, 2016 11:12 AM, "Fabio Maino" wrote: >>> > >>> > On 7/27/16 1:43 PM, Tom

Re: [nvo3] GUE extensibility (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

> On Jul 25, 2016, at 7:49 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: > >> I object to GUE due to its inability to have a significant number of >> extensions in a regular and interoperable way. The base flags structure is >> limited (note 7 of 16 flags have already been used before the

Re: [nvo3] Security in VXLAN-GPE (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

> On Jul 29, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Fabio Maino wrote: > > On 7/29/16 11:45 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: >> On Jul 29, 2016 11:12 AM, "Fabio Maino" wrote: >> > >> > On 7/27/16 1:43 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Fabio Maino

Re: [nvo3] Consensus call on encap proposals

On 7/22/16 9:47 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: On Jul 22, 2016 11:44 AM, "Tom Herbert" > wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2016 3:38 AM, "Dino Farinacci" > wrote: > > > > > - VXLAN-GPE does not appear compatible

Re: [nvo3] Security in VXLAN-GPE (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

On 7/27/16 1:43 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Fabio Maino wrote: On 7/27/16 12:27 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Fabio Maino wrote: On 7/27/16 10:53 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:44

Re: [nvo3] Consensus call on encap proposals

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Naoki Matsuhira wrote: > > > On 2016/07/21 23:56, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) wrote: >> >> WG >> >> There was a discussion in the NVO3 WG meeting in Berlin following strong >> advice from our Area Director that we need to come to a

Re: [nvo3] Consensus call on encap proposals

I'd like to have people focus on the key point of this thread. Are there serious technical objections (and specifically what are they) to moving forward with VXLAN-GPE as the standards-track protocol? Are there serious technical objections (and specifically what are they) to moving forward with

Re: [nvo3] Consensus call on encap proposals

On 2016/07/21 23:56, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) wrote: WG There was a discussion in the NVO3 WG meeting in Berlin following strong advice from our Area Director that we need to come to a consensus on converging on a common encapsulation. Two sets of questions were asked: (1) Should the WG