Re: [Int-area] [nvo3] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-03.txt

[Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 3:06 PM
> To: Xuxiaohu; Tom Herbert
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [nvo3] [Int-area] Fwd: New Version Notification for
> draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-03.txt
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/16/2016 11:58 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Joe Touch [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 12:28 PM
> >> To: Xuxiaohu; Tom Herbert
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [nvo3] [Int-area] Fwd: New Version Notification for
> >> draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-03.txt
> >>
> >> On 6/16/2016 8:09 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
> >>> Hi Tom,
> >>>
> >>> By the way, I have just had a look at your draft. It seems that this
> >>> draft itself
> >> has nothing to do with the multi-tenancy capability which is the
> >> focus of the
> >> NOV3 current charter.
> >>
> >> FWIW, I agree it would be useful to add text to discuss the relationship to
> NVO3.
> > Sound fair. An alternative is to pursue this doc in TSVWG or INTAREA first, once
> this draft is adopted by TSVWG or INTAREA and becomes stable enough, turn to
> NVo3 to pursue draft-hy-nvo3-gue-4-nvo. Otherwise, it seems unwise to build
> network overlay on a unstable UDP-based tunneling technology.
> 
> I don't see the benefit of moving this document out of NVO3 to obtain this
> feedback. You're already getting it from very active members of both TSVWG
> and INTAREA in this discussion, and there are already procedures for cross-area
> review.

It depends on whether this document is describing an generic UDP-based tunneling technology or a network overlay technology for multi-tenancy. It seems that this document is the former while draft-hy-nvo3-gue-4-nvo is the latter. Besides, IMHO, cross-area review could never replace the detailed and deep work within the most appropriate WG.

Xiaohu

> Joe
> 
> >
> > Xiaohu
> >
> >>>  In addition, according to section 7 (Motivation for GUE) of this
> >>> draft, it seems
> >> that GUE is intended to be a generic UDP-based tunneling technology.
> >> Therefore, should this draft be pursued in some WGs other than NVO3,
> >> e.g., TSVWG or INTAREA.
> >> It will definitely get review there, but to some extent it already is
> >> - there are TSV and INT area feedback in this thread.
> >>
> >>>  In this way, it would be helpful for us to better understand the
> >>> differences
> >> between GUE and GRE-in-UDP, and whether the concerns made by Joe
> >> Touch (see below) have been addressed successfully, especially when
> >> considering the case where the version is set to 1 (i.e., directly
> >> encapsulating IP packet over UDP).
> >>
> >> I agree that these issues should be addressed here too, though - to
> >> be fair - some of them already are.
> >
> >> Joe
> >>
> >>>
> >>> +++++++++
> >>> 	- stronger checksums
> >>>
> >>> 	- fragmentation support
> >>>
> >>> 	- signalling support (e.g., to test whether a tunnel is up or
> >>> 	to measure MTUs)
> >>>
> >>> 	- support for robust ID fields (related to fragmentation,
> >>> 	e.g., to overcome the limits of IPv4 ID as per RFC 6864)
> >>> ++++++++++
> >>>