> On Jul 12, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
>
> Sami, et al,
>
>
>
> The draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-00 is written very clear.
>
>
>
> However, the Section 6 (Common Encapsulation Considerations) should add a
> sub-section on the consideration of traversing NAPT. Encapsulated traffic
> On Jul 12, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
>
> Sami, et al,
>
>
>
> The draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-00 is written very clear.
>
>
>
> However, the Section 6 (Common Encapsulation Considerations) should add a
> sub-section on the consideration of traversing NAPT. Encapsulated traffic
rce UDP port to provide the ECMP and
receiver benefit.
What of NAT64?
-d
> Joe
>
>
> On 7/12/2017 4:08 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
>>> On Jul 12, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
>>>
>>> Sami, et al,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> Or all the NAT device convert the NVE’s UDP port 6081 to multiple port
> numbers?
I don't understand 'convert ... to multiple port numbers'.
-d
>
> Thanks,
> Linda
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan Wing [mailto:dw...@vmware.com]
> Se
> On Jul 13, 2017, at 12:59 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/13/2017 12:39 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
>>> On Jul 13, 2017, at 6:52 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>
>>> FWIW, why not just add the entropy in the IPv6 flow ID rather than
>>> expecting it a
> On Jul 13, 2017, at 1:29 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/13/2017 1:23 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
>>> On Jul 13, 2017, at 12:59 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/13/2017 12:39 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
>>>>> On Jul
> On Jul 14, 2017, at 7:11 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
>
> Joe Touch writes:
>> Even a NVI isn't really flow information, so might not have any
>> bearing on whether a set of packets (with the same NVI) should maintain
>> their relative order.
>
> Well, the definition of "flow information" is no
> On Jul 19, 2017, at 7:01 AM, Dave Dolson wrote:
>
> This document shows IPv6 encapsulation, but provides no guidance about
> setting the Outer IPv6 flow label.
> I would expect the flow label to be described with similar language to the
> UDP source port, since Flow Label is the obvious way
twork needs to benefit from ECMP and the v4 receiver
needs to benefit from CPU balancing.
-d
>
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Dan Wing [mailto:dw...@vmware.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 9:30 PM
> To: Dave Dolson
> Cc: Ganga, Ilango S; nvo3@ietf.org
> Subjec
> On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:19 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
>
> Dan Wing writes:
>> Using Geneve VNI doesn't take us towards that goal, though. On a
>> simple network, there is only one VNI (one virtual network), and if we
>> used solely VNI for underlay ECMP, al
traffic is encapsulated and sent to destination UDP port 4789. The
remote peer also encapsulates and sends its traffic to destination UDP port
4789. Thus, to accept incoming Geneve traffic, on-path firewalls or NATs MUST
permit incoming UDP port 4789 traffic from their remote Geneve peer."
inverted 5-tuple of the outbound traffic. I don't see value in
complicating what the IT administrator needs to configure to allow that
incoming traffic.
-d
>
> Linda
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Sep 8, 2017, at 7:34 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
>>
>>
>&
tatic port
forwarding is available on consumer and enterprise NAPT devices, and does not
suffer these drawbacks.
-d
>
>
> Thanks, Linda
>
> From: Sami Boutros [mailto:sbout...@vmware.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 4:37 PM
> To: Linda Dunbar ; Dan Wing ;
> draf
> On Sep 20, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
>
> Sami,
>
> Answers inserted below:
>
> From: Sami Boutros [mailto:sbout...@vmware.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 5:23 PM
> To: Linda Dunbar ; Dan Wing ;
> draft-ietf-nvo3-en...@ietf.org
> C
Linda
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan Wing [mailto:dw...@vmware.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 4:18 PM
> To: Linda Dunbar
> Cc: Sami Boutros ; draft-ietf-nvo3-en...@ietf.org; NVO3
>
> Subject: Re: Suggested wording for the "NAT Traversing Consideration
On Nov 16, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
>
> Dear WG Chairs, et. al,
> in their presentation in Singapore the iOAM team pointed to interest in using
> the extra header right after the GENEVE encapsulation. I've looked at their
> proposal and believe that the OOAM header, as proposed in t
On Feb 27, 2018, at 1:04 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
wrote:
> This email begins a two-week poll for adoption of
> draft-mglt-nvo3-geneve-security-requirements-03 in the NVO3 working group.
> Please review the draft and send any comments to the NVO3 list.
> Please also indicate whether you su
The paper "On the Impact of Packet Spraying in Data Center Networks" (*) shows
impact of packet spraying with TCP and seems to show good results without the
sequence number proposed in the Internet Draft. Can the authors comment on
that paper or on the need for the sequence number and group flo
18 matches
Mail list logo
