Re: [lisp] [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-00.txt

Copying the LISP working group mailing list.

>> This implies that both gpe LISP and legacy LISP may be used in the market. Is that true only IP-in-IP application need nonce feature? Mobility is important requirement for cloud applications, so gpe LISP needs to develop other solution for this feature? Sorry, this is a hard sale.
> 
> If you use IP-in-IP you don't need to set the P-bit, making the nonce available for use. Yes, there are applications where the nonce is useful.
> [Lucy] Yes, I agree that the nonce is useful. But gpe LISP router will not support that. Why do we want to remove this in the protocol evolution? 

Lucy, we are not removing anything. Like I said (and I don't want to continually repeat myself) that the features are tradeoffs.

The motivation for the change was to get VXLAN to have protocol demuxing. 
[Lucy] For VXLAN to support protocol demuxing, no need to use P bit. We have the proposal (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yong-l3vpn-nvgre-vxlan-encap/).

And in the spirit of keeping the packet formats for VXLAN and LISP as identical as VXLAN will have it, the P-bit is being proposed for LISP.
[Lucy] This logic means that if VXLAN does not need P bit, LISP does not have to have it either, right? It also indicates that you do not see the applications for gpe LISP router, is that right? IMO: LISP and VXLAN have different UDP port numbers, which is sufficient to differentiate the two.

This is a proposal. The LISP working group must decide if the draft becomes a working group document.
[Lucy] People need carefully evaluation this proposal impact on LISP. 

Regards,
Lucy

Dino

> 
> Lucy
> 
> Dino
> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Lucy
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@gmail.com] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 10:56 AM
>> To: Lucy yong
>> Cc: Paul Quinn (paulq); nvo3@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-00.txt
>> 
>>> Regarding to the protocol evolution, does this mean that nonce/map-version features in LISP will be deprecated? IMO: Having the same field overloaded for many difference purposes is not good way for the protocol evolution, it becomes messy.
>> 
>> No it does not mean that. It means that the features need to be traded off. So the market/user-base will decide what it wants to use that field for.
>> 
>> Dino
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> nvo3 mailing list
>> nvo3@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nvo3 mailing list
> nvo3@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3