IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Wed, 29 April 2015 16:01 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 5644A1AC427; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:01:36 -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 jfljjSa2vC7y; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x230.google.com (mail-lb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::230]) (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 36BD91AC438; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbbuc2 with SMTP id uc2so23849121lbb.2; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:01:19 -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=8or0CLShJJVlLZmKEEGlSdkqNhkAbSnW85iEF+4Slig=; b=u/k6w9kZh/t9Hx5EK86/3TWerGD6GU2Uh2qEk1kj8KVX9KSzgk+1zgYQ3Qt4lJ36Jx d6s1RPMiXlBZVmJdd6YiolrTaXgn1c3K3052UJ1aFG9IhxGZWxJzhqIXCrEAfeYJyPqQ qyI4W9rp/l+wK4IzcC2UrjpO43jurnlKIPaWhmC0oIxHmBl72i+5m8ZnDgXCcunR4nxA KUTr6AJcTO4asQb32Bv5UHQhCLI3o5P0Jh7bMQG5aidLC5jQUmCJjMfysYWh+mbBLhNs 4zHxtzgUC7HxB0uXy6ZYzArXREha+RzpDC8WPeOLI2skCQ4MdAvo2wDRAuVmJdo+3cTM HdgA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.93.72 with SMTP id cs8mr19637891lbb.15.1430323279674; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.74.225 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAcdOpy3YciBS8vEavSrbN1e8dbXDGWV+ZiR1jixpSshBiw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55358764.9080406@queuefull.net> <CAC8QAcedMhbcs2XjfEYupre5Gt3A+fe_NxfN=ja+KiWRnvLACA@mail.gmail.com> <553FF2FF.6020709@queuefull.net> <CAC8QAcdOpy3YciBS8vEavSrbN1e8dbXDGWV+ZiR1jixpSshBiw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:01:19 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC8QAcdyEaej54tfhdO=+KzjbGvYwZzq0EMhxx=Fdw2kj2AQ3w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
To: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/ZF8CrEiU5sWWf-UmBy6yA730rhE>
Cc: 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 16:01:36 -0000

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?

Behcet
>
> Regards,
>
> Behcet
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Benson Schliesser
> <bensons@queuefull.net> wrote:
>> Hi, Behcet.
>>
>> Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>>>
>>> I was wondering what is NSH in this draft? It is referenced as an
>>> unnamed unknown draft from 2014?
>>
>>
>> I believe that NSH refers to the protocol described by draft-ietf-sfc-nsh.
>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-nsh/)
>>
>> Thank you for reviewing the draft and noticing that the reference was
>> outdated. I anticipate that the co-authors will update the text accordingly
>> in a future revision.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Benson

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email