Re: [nvo3] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Ilango

Sorry for belated reply, it seems that your email was lost somewhere in my mailbox.

I will clear my DISCUSS about RFC 8200 as soon as the revised ID is published and incorporate the RFC 8200. BTW, two months later, I would have expected to have the revised I-D published.

It seems by your reply that you prefer to ignore my non-blocking COMMENTs whose only goals were to improve the text. Up to the authors of course.

Regards and thank you again for the work done in this document.

-éric

From: "Ganga, Ilango S" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, 5 December 2019 at 04:25
To: Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [nvo3] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)


Hello Éric,



Thanks for your review and comments.  Please see below for our responses in-line, enclosed within <Response> </Response>.

Let us know if you are satisfied with this resolution.



Regards,

Ilango Ganga

Geneve Editor





-----Original Message-----
From: nvo3 <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 10:04 AM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [nvo3] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)



Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for

draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-14: Discuss



----------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCUSS:

----------------------------------------------------------------------



Thank you for the work put into this document. It solves an interesting problem and the document is easy to read.



I have one DISCUSS that is **trivial to fix** and some COMMENTs, feel free to ignore my COMMENTs even if  I would appreciate your answers to those COMMENTs.



Regards,



-éric



== DISCUSS ==



-- Section 3.3 --

Please use RFC 8200 the 'new' IPv6 standard rather than RFC 2460 ;-)



IG> <Response> Yes, this is identified as a nit in Sheperd’s writeup to be fixed during the publication process. We will update the reference to RFC 8200.

</Response>





----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT:

----------------------------------------------------------------------



== COMMENTS ==



-- Generic --

Is it worth mentioning that when transporting an Ethernet frame neither the preamble nor the inter-frame gap are included? (AFAIR, IEEE considers those parts as integral part of the IEEE 802.3 frame)



IG> <Response>

Illustrations in sections 3.1 and 3.2 show that the Ethernet payload does not include the preamble/start frame delimiter. We don’t believe there is any ambiguity so we don’t need to have explicit text to mention this information.

</Response>





Is a length of 24 bits for the VNI be enough?



IG> <Response>

This was discussed in the WG. The NVO3 design team constituted by the WG Chairs/AD discussed this item and considered whether a 24-bit vs larger VNI and finally made a recommendation to keep the VNI to 24-bit. This is documented in sections 6.9 and 7 of draft-dt-nvo3-encap-01

</Response>



-- Section 1 --

In the list of protocols, rather than presenting the current list as comprehensive, I would suggest to clearly present this list as non-exhaustive.



IG> <Response>  We believe you are referring to the following text:

"The large number of protocols in this space, ranging all the way from VLANs [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] and MPLS [RFC3031] through the more recent VXLAN [RFC7348] (Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network) and NVGRE [RFC7637] (Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation)..."



The above text does not imply an exhaustive list of protocols, but examples to illustrate a range of protocols. We don’t believe additional clarification is needed to say it is non-exhaustive.

</Response>





Is it worth to mention the reasoning behind "one additional defining requirement is the need to carry system state along with the packet data"

(beside common sense)



IG> <Response>

Example uses of metadata is described in the last sentence of this paragraph.

</Response>





-- Section 4.4.1 --

It is unclear to me whether Geneve endpoints can fragment the Geneve UDP-encapsulated packet itself as the transit routers see only unfragmentable packets.



IG> <Response>

The tunnel end point function does not fragment the packet, the tenant system does the fragmentation or limit the MTU size to avoid fragmentation.

</Response>



_______________________________________________

nvo3 mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3