Re: [nvo3-dt-encap] Discussion summary - 1/10/2017

[Pankaj Garg <[e-mail]>]

Yes I did, my mistake, sorry about it.

On Jan 11, 2017 11:00 AM, "Rajeev Manur" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Pankaj,
>
> Thanks for the notes. I participated in yesterday's discussion as well.
> Looks like you missed my name on the participants list.
>
> Thanks!
> --Rajeev
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jan 11, 2017, at 7:25 AM, Pankaj Garg <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Thanks for attending the call. My curated notes are below.
> >
> > Participants:
> >    Erik Nordmark (Arista)
> >    Michael Smith (Cisco)
> >    Ignas Bagdonas (Equinix)
> >    Ilango Ganga (Intel)
> >    Sami Boutros (VMware)
> >    Tal Mizrahi (Marvell)
> >    David Mozes (Mellanox)
> >    Pankaj Garg (Microsoft)
> >
> > 1. We discussed the text for requiring at minimum 64-bytes to be
> >   supported in Geneve. There is consensus that we should propose a text
> >   to Geneve authors on minimum option length requirement. This would
> >   ensure there is common minimum support from all compliant Geneve
> >   implementations.
> >
> > 2. We discussed the idea of TLV0 further and upon discussion it was
> >   realized that it adds more confusion without any significant gain.
> >   Hence design team agreed to drop this from the proposed changes.
> >
> > 3. We agreed that we should put some text either in Geneve draft or
> >   design team report around supporting option ordering in Geneve
> >   implemnentations. The idea is that if a hardware can process options
> >   in TCAM but it can only process the first TLV, then control plane in
> >   a deployment can use this capability by ensuring a specific TLV is
> >   always the first one in the packet. We need someone to write this
> >   text.
> >
> > 4. We discussed split-NVE case and agreed that we need to ask WG whether
> >   in split-NVE case, options needs to be carried in other packet
> >   formats such as 802.1q and if they do, then would carrying Geneve
> >   frame in 802.1q be needed? Based on WG recommendation, an ETYPE
> >   and/or IP protocol number can be allocated for Geneve as well. Erik
> >   has agreed to write text around this question. Thanks Erik.
> >
> > 5. Sami has volunteered to write the initial draft for design team
> >   report. This report would contain our rationale for proposing a
> >   specific encapsulation and few specific extension use cases and how
> >   propose encapsulation meet those requirements. Thanks Sami.
> >
> > 6. Pankaj would send one extension use case around diagnostics. We would
> >   check with Tom on extension around security. Those will probably be
> >   two use cases we would cover in our design report.
> >
> > Please let me know if I missed anything.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Pankaj (on behalf of NVO3 Encap Design Team)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nvo3-dt-encap mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3-dt-encap
>