Re: [nvo3] Update on encapsulation design team

[Anoop Ghanwani <[e-mail]>]

Alia,

I think it will provide an official reference which will be helpful since
all the encaps will be around a long time and we can point people to that
document when we are asked the question "why did they develop yet another
encap?".

Thanks,
Anoop

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Alia Atlas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Anoop & Fabiio,
>
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Anoop Ghanwani <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Agree with Fabio (including the suggestion for an interim deliverable on
>> shortcomings).  If the WG doesn't agree on the shortcomings, chances are
>> they may not like the 4th encap.
>>
>
> What do you expect to be different from the summary of technical
> objections that came out of the last discussion?  Are you looking for more
> detail?
>
> I didn't see disagreement about the accuracy of the technical objections.
>
> Regards,
> Alia
>
>
>> Anoop
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Fabio.
>>>
>>> Choosing a single encapsulation that is not 1 of the 3, creates a 4th
>>> one that no one wants.
>>>
>>> And guess what, you make all 3 authors unhappy where none of them will
>>> endorse (or implement) the 4th one.
>>>
>>> Dino
>>>
>>> > On Oct 20, 2016, at 12:02 PM, Fabio Maino <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > (for full disclosure I'm one of the authors of VXLAN-GPE)
>>> >
>>> > Matt, Sam, Alia,
>>> > I've expressed multiple times and in multiple venues my adversity (and
>>> the motivations) to set this group to design yet another encapsulation. I
>>> won't repeat it here once again, but I want to re-assert that it's still
>>> were I stand.
>>> >
>>> > I've seen quite a few people in the mailing list here expressing
>>> similar concerns, but I see that it has not changed the opinion of the
>>> chairs and the AD on what they believe is the best way to move forward.
>>> >
>>> > That said, here are my comments to the charter.
>>> >
>>> > I think the design team first goal should be to clearly articulate the
>>> shortcomings of the current encapsulations proposed to the WG. This should
>>> be the very first deliverable of the design team. The actual design work
>>> should start only once the WG has reached consensus on that document.
>>> Especially considering that some of the encapsulations proposed are being
>>> deployed, I think articulating the shortcomings will help to make the best
>>> choice in term of (1) selecting which one will need to be extended, and (2)
>>> designing the actual extensions.
>>> >
>>> > Below are my proposals on how to modify the wording of the charter.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 10/20/16 1:37 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) wrote:
>>> >> WG,
>>> >>
>>> >> We would like to give you an update on the process in the WG for
>>> progressing the issue of a data plane encapsulation. The chairs and Alia
>>> believe that the best way forward is to progress a single encapsulation
>>> format that addresses the technical concerns raised on the list in the
>>> recent discussions. This would address the clear overall consensus of the
>>> Berlin meeting and list for a single encapsulation.
>>> >>
>>> >> The strategy should be to take one of the three existing
>>> encapsulations and enhance it to address these concerns. This would become
>>> the standards track output of the WG. The existing three drafts (GENEVE,
>>> GUE and VXLAN-GPE) should be forwarded to the IESG as informational after
>>> the standards track draft specifying the single encapsulation. This
>>> provides an opportunity for those encapsulations to be documented and
>>> maintained.
>>> >>
>>> >> The single encapsulation should be viewed as one that the WG and
>>> industry can converge around for the future.
>>> >>
>>> >> We have created a design team to progress work on a single
>>> encapsulation that can form the basis or work going forward. The design
>>> team members are: Michael Schmidt, Uri Elzur, Ilango Ganga, Erik Nordmark,
>>> Rajeev Manur, Prankaj Garg. Many thanks to these individuals for their help.
>>> >>
>>> >> Please see below for a draft charter for the design team. Please
>>> review the charter and send comments to the list by 2nd November 2016.
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards,
>>> >>
>>> >> Matthew and Sam
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ====
>>> >> NVO3 Encapsulation Design team 2016
>>> >>
>>> >> Problem Statement
>>> >> The NVO3 WG charter states that it may produce requirements for
>>> network virtualization data planes based on encapsulation of virtual
>>> network traffic over an IP-based underlay data plane. Such requirements
>>> should consider OAM and security. Based on these requirements the WG will
>>> select, extend, and/or develop one or more data plane encapsulation
>>> format(s).
>>> >>
>>> >> This has led to drafts describing three encapsulations being adopted
>>> by the working group:
>>> >> - draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-03
>>> >> - draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-04
>>> >> - draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-02
>>> >>
>>> >> Discussion on the list and in face-to-face meetings has identified a
>>> number of technical problems with each of these encapsulations.
>>> Furthermore, there was clear consensus at the IETF meeting in Berlin that
>>> it is undesirable for the working group to progress more than one data
>>> plane encapsulation. Although consensus could not be reached on the list,
>>> the overall consensus was for a single encapsulation (RFC2418, Section
>>> 3.3). Nonetheless there has been resistance to converging on a single
>>> encapsulation format, although doing so would provide the best benefit to
>>> the industry.
>>> >
>>> > The portion of the last sentence that follows the comma ("although
>>> doing so would provide the best benefit to the industry") doesn't seem to
>>> be adding anything to the charter. I'd suggest it could be removed.
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Design Team Goals
>>> > The design team should clearly articulate in a draft which are the
>>> shortcomings of the proposed encapsulations, and where they fall short in
>>> addressing the NVO3 architectural requirements.
>>> >
>>> > Once the 'shortcomings' draft has reached consensus of the WG,
>>> >> The design team should take one of the proposed encapsulations and
>>> enhance it to address the technical concerns.
>>> >> Backwards compatibility with the chosen encapsulation and the simple
>>> evolution of deployed networks as well as applicability to all locations in
>>> the NVO3 architecture
>>> > , together with the design goals articulated in the 'shortcoming'
>>> draft,
>>> >
>>> >> are goals. The DT should specifically avoid a design that is
>>> burdensome on hardware implementations, but should allow future
>>> extensibility. The chosen design should also operate well with ICMP and in
>>> ECMP environments. If further extensibility is required, then it should be
>>> done in such a manner that it does not require the consent of an entity
>>> outside of the IETF.
>>> >>
>>> >> Timeline
>>> >> The design team should
>>> > first produce the 'shortcomings' draft, get it adopted by the WG, and
>>> then
>>> >
>>> >> produce a first draft describing the proposal by end of January 2017.
>>> Target adoption by the WG by March 2017 IETF.
>>> >>
>>> > (those two dates may need to be adjusted accordingly)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Fabio
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> nvo3 mailing list
>>> >>
>>> >> [e-mail]
>>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > nvo3 mailing list
>>> > [e-mail]
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nvo3 mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nvo3 mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>>
>>
>