On 2/17/2017 9:04 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> But again, we don't have any examples of a protocol with ordered TLVs
> that does this and there is no concrete proposal for doing this in
> Geneve so this idea is just speculation.
Ordered TLVs are the same thing as bitfields in known orders. The only
>> I agree with that, however there are fewer unknowns to deal with when
>> using bit-fields as opposed to TLVs. Once the sender and receiver
>> agree on options to be used, with bit-fields the order and length are
>> fixed.
>
> I gave an example above where that's not the case. A value in a
> On Feb 16, 2017, at 6:17 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 2/16/2017 4:39 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>> The operational issues we see with TLVs in terms of performance and
>>> DDOS are not
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 2/16/2017 4:39 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> The operational issues we see with TLVs in terms of performance and
>> DDOS are not aberrations, they are fundamental issues we face in
>> deployment.
> Agreed, in the case where TLV
On 2/16/2017 4:39 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> The operational issues we see with TLVs in terms of performance and
> DDOS are not aberrations, they are fundamental issues we face in
> deployment.
Agreed, in the case where TLV sets are not fixed for a given path. The
same is also true for bitfields:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
>
> On 2/16/2017 4:10 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>
> But, as I said this idea creates a new dependency on a control plane
> which is TBD. I'm afraid this could be a opening a Pandora's box of
> new complexity that the group
Hi Tom,
On 2/16/2017 4:10 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>> But, as I said this idea creates a new dependency on a control plane
>>> which is TBD. I'm afraid this could be a opening a Pandora's box of
>>> new complexity that the group didn't bargain for...
>> You need a control plane to setup the
On 2/16/2017 3:45 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>
>> On 2/16/2017 3:26 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>> Admittedly, without any actual TLVs defined in Geneve all of this is
>>> all just speculation on my part!
>>>
>>> Tom
>> Agreed, and
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 2/16/2017 3:26 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> Admittedly, without any actual TLVs defined in Geneve all of this is
>> all just speculation on my part!
>>
>> Tom
> Agreed, and more specifically, regardless of the flexibility of
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 2/16/2017 1:14 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/16/2017 12:27 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
The problems of TLVs, particularly that they are unordered,
On 2/16/2017 1:14 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>
>> On 2/16/2017 12:27 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>> The problems of TLVs, particularly that they are unordered, require
>>> iterative processing,
>> That's trivially avoided by forcing
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 2/16/2017 12:27 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> The problems of TLVs, particularly that they are unordered, require
>> iterative processing,
> That's trivially avoided by forcing the order.
>
> As I noted before, all that is
On 2/16/2017 12:27 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> The problems of TLVs, particularly that they are unordered, require
> iterative processing,
That's trivially avoided by forcing the order.
As I noted before, all that is required for equivalently easy processing
is that both TLVs and bitfields use
> In the security section you provided text for, we talked about the
> possibility of authenticating the tunnel header and payload via extensions
> to address concern of spoofing VNI and payload security.
Please look at draft-herbert-gue-extensions, that draft realizes the
"possibility of
On 2/15/17, 2:36 PM, "Tom Herbert" wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Sami Boutros wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>>
>>
>>>The Security Considerations section needs content. First and foremost,
>>>in a multi-tenant data center ensuring strict
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Sami Boutros wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
>
>
>>The Security Considerations section needs content. First and foremost,
>>in a multi-tenant data center ensuring strict isolation between
>>different tenants traffic seems fundamental and the mechanisms for
Hi Tom,
>The Security Considerations section needs content. First and foremost,
>in a multi-tenant data center ensuring strict isolation between
>different tenants traffic seems fundamental and the mechanisms for
>doing that should be explicit in the description of an encapsulation.
>Bear in
17 matches
Mail list logo