[nvo3] DT and Encapsulation Considerations

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Wed, 26 October 2016 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.com>
X-Original-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B671A1295BB for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:33:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 Xb6EcTl9AyKo for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:33:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x231.google.com (mail-qk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::231]) (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 50F1A129409 for <nvo3@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:33:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id o68so18908194qkf.3 for <nvo3@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:33:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=PuUPxlVGDe/jDFl5BUHrBwPNMdLHMA2PyKJ/di6fRUc=; b=UHZhNoBacX1MuZUrDE3/REWs6iA09GSek9w4RGFC59EywbWaBrbI7Ga1VIjHNcN8Yk TjP7ikqmXTRbq+jDyD4Tks0VPzMGQGMYm9+oAcgIEWTOxYW+aKMJvuy1HbKaKeEWaUgo runpGltDmE/dsL3kzOzN9iKuacieD82PYPxY01S44W8VE1bceXNuGgVun23aRAomRhZd Jt/3MhLBRcxvykoK2efZJw4egwmXTYIBZMIJ49sGy0Ue24MBgGof0leiW4TIClpaHE47 /OWywGq75WWcZBr2Dqh4khgadJGbP8BhFVbE8tbqqGcUQjoiaJJJtY+IU8GxBnDWPQzR MaIA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=PuUPxlVGDe/jDFl5BUHrBwPNMdLHMA2PyKJ/di6fRUc=; b=LUdDHxWiC8nOi7aiIREF/vb8yIMA2y2qccOHx4CkWBm/UOk7HEt+IEkNK+egCP3HcI QooX6DFOswAcMlBRwlWctGU0M9X68C/0nSGtFQc19nijirFPFjWQtslR9tTfHoM11Tmd fl2HxNIEojlxYaoUntmtgTkt1IGeZ7fNlkjgygd313Sa6ETUUwWAoC6aYREdXYa3hu5o PfjZ6VfxpZ7bB307mW/JfHUjM1e89hHCg0Cw3gn/5FL+A2wstAqeEl4yWIpvDbMRGekt AiL46TArgaDciFVSLNb8eolL1A0+jrAvV7hnKH2xd7J31ZviPf2XE7OY8u98KZ2uoo1X T4vA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvcxST8Mak2+ohSmsXelwR0z18T5FqN/zsQZopg79GXIBtPRPrX7p2WCAUbbajzL/lPkDFKD7KgcuiW5BQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.31.205 with SMTP id n74mr3175041qkh.269.1477513998250; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.237.44.71 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:33:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S34Vk9gjGDEa7pz1gKWV9kpy1fBiDvy4qVJmjB_T1Phv-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/_nI7-gRqHTZQ9RTw6lH26BaGXDg>
Subject: [nvo3] DT and Encapsulation Considerations
X-BeenThere: nvo3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 26 Oct 2016 20:33:21 -0000

As I mentioned in the virtual meeting this morning the "Encapsulation
Considerations" document provides list of items that should be
considered when designing an encapsulation protocol for IETF. The DT
that produced that document included authors from all three nvo3 WG
encapsulation proposals and I believe was pretty comprehensive in
enunciating the considerations. I think this gives important input to
the new DT. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap-01

For GUE, we actually wrote a draft that attempts to rectify the items
listed in the Encapsulation Considerations with what we did in GUE.
This was a good exercise to identify and fix potential deficiencies in
the protocol. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-herbert-gue-encap-considerations-01

Tom