Re: [Apn] should add the gap analysis for GENEVE (RFC8926)

"Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)" <pengshuping@huawei.com> Sat, 20 March 2021 02:10 UTC

Return-Path: <pengshuping@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: apn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA3DD3A1764; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 19:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qQerGJ3UBLsY; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 19:10:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA3133A0E01; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 19:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml701-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.201]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4F2PCV3Gy2z67yvM; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:02:14 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.50) by fraeml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2106.2; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 03:10:47 +0100
Received: from DGGEML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.49) by fraeml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.2106.2 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 03:10:46 +0100
Received: from DGGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.207]) by dggeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.3.17.49]) with mapi id 14.03.0513.000; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:10:43 +0800
From: "Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)" <pengshuping@huawei.com>
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>, "draft-peng-apn-scope-gap-analysis@ietf.org" <draft-peng-apn-scope-gap-analysis@ietf.org>, "apn@ietf.org" <apn@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: should add the gap analysis for GENEVE (RFC8926)
Thread-Index: AdccUkbaMIFshIzhRci6WKwwf8chKwARl3NAAA20H/AAFwFhwA==
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 02:10:43 +0000
Message-ID: <4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE199F59E6@dggeml512-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <SN6PR13MB2334C4F7D2306EF8907229F485699@SN6PR13MB2334.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE199E8C18@dggeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <SN6PR13MB2334ACCFC53BBF53A8A0EB0685689@SN6PR13MB2334.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR13MB2334ACCFC53BBF53A8A0EB0685689@SN6PR13MB2334.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.153.195.12]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE199F59E6dggeml512mbschi_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apn/oU6vh1xRaozUyBaGIWCSjqqvAz8>
Subject: Re: [Apn] should add the gap analysis for GENEVE (RFC8926)
X-BeenThere: apn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Application-aware Networking <apn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apn>, <mailto:apn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/apn/>
List-Post: <mailto:apn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apn>, <mailto:apn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 02:10:55 -0000

Hi Linda,

Yes, this is what I meant.

The draft-li-6man-app-aware-ipv6-network-02 gives an example of the encapsulation of the APN attribute in the IPv6 data plane.

Since you mentioned GENEVE, have you seen some scenarios that could use APN in GENEVE?

Thank you!

Best Regards,
Shuping

From: Linda Dunbar [mailto:linda.dunbar@futurewei.com]
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2021 11:48 PM
To: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <pengshuping@huawei.com>; draft-peng-apn-scope-gap-analysis@ietf.org; apn@ietf.org
Subject: RE: should add the gap analysis for GENEVE (RFC8926)

ShuPing,

When you say "needs to be developed", do you mean mapping the APN-ID and APN-Associated-Parameters into the GENEVE TLV?

For example, the App-AWARE ID from the draft-li-6man-app-aware-ipv6-network-02 can be specified as a Sub-TLV to GENEVE header.
[cid:image001.png@01D71D6E.F7144DB0]

Linda

From: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <pengshuping@huawei.com<mailto:pengshuping@huawei.com>>
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2021 3:24 AM
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com<mailto:linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>>; draft-peng-apn-scope-gap-analysis@ietf.org<mailto:draft-peng-apn-scope-gap-analysis@ietf.org>; apn@ietf.org<mailto:apn@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: should add the gap analysis for GENEVE (RFC8926)

Hi Linda,

Thank you!

GENEVE can be taken into account when carrying the APN attribute. The encapsulation with it seems more to be a solution that needs to be developed rather than a gap analysis to be added. How do you think?

Best regards,
Shuping

From: Linda Dunbar [mailto:linda.dunbar@futurewei.com]
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2021 7:56 AM
To: draft-peng-apn-scope-gap-analysis@ietf.org<mailto:draft-peng-apn-scope-gap-analysis@ietf.org>; apn@ietf.org<mailto:apn@ietf.org>
Subject: should add the gap analysis for GENEVE (RFC8926)

Shuping, et al,

I think that the draft-peng-apn-scope-gap-analysis should add the gap analysis for GENEVE (RFC8926).

GENEVE has been used very widely among Cloud networks. For example, you can have a GENEVE encapsulated flows to Firewalls. You can attach App related Meta data to the GENEVE header, so that the nodes along the way can do the needed processing.



Geneve Header:
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Ver|  Opt Len  |O|C|    Rsvd.  |          Protocol Type        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |        Virtual Network Identifier (VNI)       |    Reserved   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~                    Variable-Length Options                    ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

If there are reasons that GENEVE can't be used, it is better to document those reasons in the Gap analysis.

Linda Dunbar