IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nvo3] NVO3 WG Adoption of draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-04

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Wed, 29 April 2015 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E7DB1A1AB3; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yDLsiSVfsw5I; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22a.google.com (mail-la0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C70881A0396; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by labbd9 with SMTP id bd9so26980075lab.2; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=rLi/QpjOj2g9Haffgwm9UH4BxeGqi/l6+OHPWrtE/34=; b=SuTk+ZZRoRoccagVSIoWtnenZ5bg8Gy3knFbmjL+nDk9cfk1MJeQy5JW2O7Lo0vAod R9Uqutw3uptDsTBUi0cms6qxnoG9N54HZcAst2jA8qkckqaWTiKpckY9J1OTkGnk8hOt ZFlarxIXqRjQlSMaVPBagrihOEpQl3XlPsgeofhnNLqGpvLWV6q0D7s2DjzQIplQRz9Z 0BSznUiXDniHp5EqxmH45UbHhFcZ/3dwIVw1JI42/OC+gqllOOawH8iENmxi8pphp4su EIWB/TXxvfk2gvEugZHXSjwbXXMo3m2/ozNRqNbmYUYQ32lNtIIhWUpUwNbltRLpOJeZ /CGw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.181.68 with SMTP id du4mr356760lbc.11.1430332618281; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.74.225 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C35FEF60-6278-4BA6-83C0-8FA918561EE1@cisco.com>
References: <55358764.9080406@queuefull.net> <CAC8QAcedMhbcs2XjfEYupre5Gt3A+fe_NxfN=ja+KiWRnvLACA@mail.gmail.com> <553FF2FF.6020709@queuefull.net> <CAC8QAcdOpy3YciBS8vEavSrbN1e8dbXDGWV+ZiR1jixpSshBiw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC8QAcdyEaej54tfhdO=+KzjbGvYwZzq0EMhxx=Fdw2kj2AQ3w@mail.gmail.com> <C35FEF60-6278-4BA6-83C0-8FA918561EE1@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:36:58 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC8QAce34=8YLPaqzxCX5deRpzwfzC-wYx4fjLsVWt-+8HkD9w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
To: "Paul Quinn (paulq)" <paulq@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/BiBoIdArpGm4dSBfV9zqSsg8emk>
Cc: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>, "draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe@ietf.org" <draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe@ietf.org>, "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>, "nvo3-chairs@ietf.org" <nvo3-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] NVO3 WG Adoption of draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-04
X-BeenThere: nvo3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
List-Id: "Network Virtualization Overlays \(NVO3\) Working Group" <nvo3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nvo3>, <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/>
List-Post: <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3>, <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:37:01 -0000

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Paul Quinn (paulq) <paulq@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 29, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Benson,
>>>
>>> Joe Touch wrote this on intarea list:
>>>
>>> There is no reason for having the GUE header differentiate between
>>> payload=IPv4 and payload=IPv6. The IP version is addressed by the
>>> version field of the IP header. If GUE encapsulates both type of IP the
>>> same way (and it should), it should NOT differentiate between them in
>>> its (GUE) header.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think the same applies to gpe header.
>>>
>>> Plus the issues on the "NSH" protocol.
>>
>> Curiously if you look at the nsh draft, Section 3.2,
>>
>> NSH Base Header
>>
>> also has a next protocol field with the same encoding.
>>
>> Anybody understands what is going on?
>
> Yes, the concept is that you don't know what you want to carry via GPE.  Today it might be v4, v6, ethernet, NSH or something else.  Tomorrow, who knows?  But more importantly, we need to enable that stacking to occur.
>


Please convince not me but Joe Touch on v4 and v6 thing.

> The format of NSH is orthogonal -- as is the format of Ethernet for that matter.  From an outer header (i.e. VXLAN-GPE or other) you need to be able to identify the inner protocol.
>

Are we talking about VM-to-VM communication? I think that is what
VXLAN was designed for.

Regards,

Behcet
> Paul
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email