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

[Sami Boutros <[e-mail]>]

Please find attached the initial draft.

Thanks,

Sami
From: nvo3-dt-encap <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Pankaj Garg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 12:12 AM
To: Rajeev Manur <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [nvo3-dt-encap] Discussion summary - 1/10/2017


Yes I did, my mistake, sorry about it.

On Jan 11, 2017 11:00 AM, "Rajeev Manur" <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3-dt-encap<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_nvo3-2Ddt-2Dencap&d=DwMFaQ&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=IVzcTRLQdpta08L0b_y2zDkqvwJhRKMCAbX-2K-LV98&m=nm_Ctkl_dvuZF0yR7wFkzKY9084l5Bdok5sR2g1LFX4&s=t-U-Xb4i7VQD8CuCVfPVBuNiMKRYKD3RkKDuxtkXWxs&e=>