Re: [nvo3] Document shepherd review of draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-09.txt
"Ganga, Ilango S" <ilango.s.ganga@intel.com> Mon, 04 March 2019 04:36 UTC
Return-Path: <ilango.s.ganga@intel.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 8384E12D4EA; Sun, 3 Mar 2019 20:36:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 TcnlFouRcmUX; Sun, 3 Mar 2019 20:36:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAAB4130F70; Sun, 3 Mar 2019 20:36:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message)
X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False
Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Mar 2019 20:36:52 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.58,438,1544515200"; d="scan'208";a="148303516"
Received: from orsmsx109.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.240.7]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Mar 2019 20:36:52 -0800
Received: from orsmsx126.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.240.126) by ORSMSX109.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.240.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Sun, 3 Mar 2019 20:36:51 -0800
Received: from orsmsx111.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.12.96]) by ORSMSX126.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Sun, 3 Mar 2019 20:36:51 -0800
From: "Ganga, Ilango S" <ilango.s.ganga@intel.com>
To: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" <matthew.bocci@nokia.com>, "draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve@ietf.org>
CC: NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Document shepherd review of draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-09.txt
Thread-Index: AQHUzqRX8hOVWafhBEym9B309UfFoqX65sow
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 04:36:50 +0000
Message-ID: <C5A274B25007804B800CB5B289727E35904EE41D@ORSMSX111.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <86E957C6-F15A-4685-8CF6-5635183D9865@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <86E957C6-F15A-4685-8CF6-5635183D9865@nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiYzg5Mjg3N2ItNGNhZi00NjMxLTgxNGEtMDAzZTlkZmY0NTQ1IiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoiU3ArQTJTUDhIMW5IbnZWMUJZQ2pVcTBaNnJNOVU5dUNjcFJyNThQQVk3QTJRMGE5bU9zNWRUODhvckxZQXhOeiJ9
x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-version: 11.0.400.15
dlp-reaction: no-action
x-originating-ip: [10.22.254.139]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/j9U_DSdNXYeGycfMCTXsFckLHpk>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Document shepherd review of draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-09.txt
X-BeenThere: nvo3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 04:37:00 -0000
Hello Matthew and WG, We have posted a new version of the document draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-10.txt that addresses the comments from Document Shepherd review and an update to option class table. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/l2GVXhv4F4cVjqjC7-ek2VJJdf0 Thanks, Ilango Ganga Editor, Geneve -----Original Message----- From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 5:57 AM To: draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve@ietf.org Cc: NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org> Subject: [nvo3] Document shepherd review of draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-09.txt Authors, As is customary, I have reviewed the latest version of the draft and it is clear and well-written. Thank you. I have inserted a few minor comments in the copy of the draft below (prefixed by MB>). They are mostly editorial. Please treat these as you would other WG last call comments. Best regards Matthew ================= Network Working Group J. Gross, Ed. Internet-Draft Intended status: Standards Track I. Ganga, Ed. Expires: August 26, 2019 Intel T. Sridhar, Ed. VMware February 22, 2019 Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-09 Abstract Network virtualization involves the cooperation of devices with a wide variety of capabilities such as software and hardware tunnel endpoints, transit fabrics, and centralized control clusters. As a result of their role in tying together different elements in the system, the requirements on tunnels are influenced by all of these components. Flexibility is therefore the most important aspect of a tunnel protocol if it is to keep pace with the evolution of the system. This draft describes Geneve, a protocol designed to recognize and accommodate these changing capabilities and needs. MB> Suggest you rephrase the last sentence to "This document describes MB> Geneve, an encapsulation protocol designed..." Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. [snip] 1. Introduction Networking has long featured a variety of tunneling, tagging, and other encapsulation mechanisms. However, the advent of network virtualization has caused a surge of renewed interest and a corresponding increase in the introduction of new protocols. 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], NVGRE [RFC7637], often leads to questions about the MB> s/NVGRE/ and NVGRE MB> Also, please expand less commonly used acronyms on first use e.g. MB> NVGRE and LV2 (below) need for new encapsulation formats and what it is about network virtualization in particular that leads to their proliferation. While many encapsulation protocols seek to simply partition the underlay network or bridge between two domains, network virtualization views the transit network as providing connectivity between multiple components of a distributed system. In many ways this system is similar to a chassis switch with the IP underlay network playing the role of the backplane and tunnel endpoints on the edge as line cards. When viewed in this light, the requirements placed on the tunnel protocol are significantly different in terms of the quantity of metadata necessary and the role of transit nodes. Current work such as VL2 [VL2] and the NVO3 working group MB> Replace 'NVO3 working group' with 'NVO3 dataplane requirements' [I-D.ietf-nvo3-dataplane-requirements] have described some of the properties that the data plane must have to support network virtualization. However, one additional defining requirement is the need to carry system state along with the packet data. The use of some metadata is certainly not a foreign concept - nearly all protocols used for virtualization have at least 24 bits of identifier space as a way to partition between tenants. This is often described as overcoming the limits of 12-bit VLANs, and when seen in that context, or any context where it is a true tenant identifier, 16 million possible entries is a large number. However, the reality is that the metadata is not exclusively used to identify tenants and encoding other information quickly starts to crowd the space. In fact, when compared to the tags used to exchange metadata between line cards on a chassis switch, 24-bit identifiers start to look quite small. There are nearly endless uses for this metadata, ranging from storing input ports for simple security policies to service based context for interposing advanced middleboxes. [snip] Geneve. Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation. The tunnel protocol described in this draft. MB> Replace 'draft' with 'document' as it should soon be an RFC LRO. Large Receive Offload. The receive-side equivalent function of LSO, in which multiple protocol segments (primarily TCP) are coalesced into larger data units. [snip] 2. Design Requirements Geneve is designed to support network virtualization use cases, where tunnels are typically established to act as a backplane between the virtual switches residing in hypervisors, physical switches, or middleboxes or other appliances. An arbitrary IP network can be used MB> Maybe add a reference to the NVO3 frameowork here (RFC 7365) as an underlay although Clos networks composed using ECMP links are a common choice to provide consistent bisectional bandwidth across all connection points. Figure 1 shows an example of a hypervisor, top of rack switch for connectivity to physical servers, and a WAN uplink connected using Geneve tunnels over a simplified Clos network. These tunnels are used to encapsulate and forward frames from the attached components such as VMs or physical links. [snip] 2.1. Control Plane Independence Although some protocols for network virtualization have included a control plane as part of the tunnel format specification (most notably, the original VXLAN spec prescribed a multicast learning- based control plane), these specifications have largely been treated MB> Please provide a reference to the original VXLAN spec as describing only the data format. The VXLAN packet format has actually seen a wide variety of control planes built on top of it. There is a clear advantage in settling on a data format: most of the protocols are only superficially different and there is little advantage in duplicating effort. However, the same cannot be said of control planes, which are diverse in very fundamental ways. The case for standardization is also less clear given the wide variety in requirements, goals, and deployment scenarios. Gross, et al. Expires August 26, 2019 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Geneve Protocol February 2019 As a result of this reality, Geneve aims to be a pure tunnel format MB> replace 'aims' with 'is' specification that is capable of fulfilling the needs of many control planes by explicitly not selecting any one of them. This simultaneously promotes a shared data format and increases the chances that it will not be obsoleted by future control plane enhancements. MB> 'The last part of this sentence might read better as "...and reduces MB> the chance of obsolescence by future control plane enhancements." [snip] 2.2.1. Efficient Implementation There is often a conflict between software flexibility and hardware performance that is difficult to resolve. For a given set of functionality, it is obviously desirable to maximize performance. However, that does not mean new features that cannot be run at that speed today should be disallowed. Therefore, for a protocol to be MB> I am not sure what you mean by 'that speed'. Maybe rephrase this to MB> 'a desired speed', or do you mean 'line speed'? efficiently implementable means that a set of common capabilities can be reasonably handled across platforms along with a graceful mechanism to handle more advanced features in the appropriate situations. [snip] Options, if present in the packet, MUST be generated and terminated by tunnel endpoints. Transit devices MAY be able to interpret the MB> Do you mean that options, if present in the packet, MUST *only* be MB> generated and terminated by tunnel endpoints. If so, please rephrase. options, however, as non-terminating devices, transit devices do not originate or terminate the Geneve packet, hence MUST NOT modify Geneve headers and MUST NOT insert or delete options, which is the responsibility of tunnel endpoints. The participation of transit devices in interpreting options is OPTIONAL. [snip] 4. Implementation and Deployment Considerations 4.1. Applicability Statement Geneve is a network virtualization overlay encapsulation protocol designed to establish tunnels between NVEs over an existing IP network. It is intended for use in public or private data center environments, for deploying multi-tenant overlay networks over an existing IP underlay network. Geneve is an UDP based encapsulation protocol transported over MB> s/ an UDP / a UDP existing IPv4 and IPv6 networks. Hence, as an UDP based protocol, MB> s/ an UDP / a UDP Geneve needs to meet the UDP usage guidelines as specified in MB> Does 'needs' mean 'does' or MUST? Please clarify if this is a MB> requirement or a statement of fact [RFC8085]. The applicability of these guidelines are dependent on the underlay IP network and the nature of Geneve payload protocol (example TCP/IP, IP/Ethernet). _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
- [nvo3] Document shepherd review of draft-ietf-nvo… Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
- Re: [nvo3] Document shepherd review of draft-ietf… Ganga, Ilango S