Re: [nvo3] Update on encapsulation design team

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Hi Anoop,

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Anoop Ghanwani <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Alia,
>
> I think it will provide an official reference which will be helpful since
> all the encaps will be around a long time and we can point people to that
> document when we are asked the question "why did they develop yet another
> encap?".
>

So what you are asking for is a section in the overall draft that talks
about the motivations and improvements?
There's a trade-off of speed and getting a solution done versus doing
process work for a theoretical future that won't happen if we don't get the
technical work finished.

Regards,
Alia



> Thanks,
> Anoop
>
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Alia Atlas <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Anoop & Fabiio,
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Anoop Ghanwani <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Agree with Fabio (including the suggestion for an interim deliverable on
>>> shortcomings).  If the WG doesn't agree on the shortcomings, chances are
>>> they may not like the 4th encap.
>>>
>>
>> What do you expect to be different from the summary of technical
>> objections that came out of the last discussion?  Are you looking for more
>> detail?
>>
>> I didn't see disagreement about the accuracy of the technical objections.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alia
>>
>>
>>> Anoop
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree with Fabio.
>>>>
>>>> Choosing a single encapsulation that is not 1 of the 3, creates a 4th
>>>> one that no one wants.
>>>>
>>>> And guess what, you make all 3 authors unhappy where none of them will
>>>> endorse (or implement) the 4th one.
>>>>
>>>> Dino
>>>>
>>>> > On Oct 20, 2016, at 12:02 PM, Fabio Maino <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > (for full disclosure I'm one of the authors of VXLAN-GPE)
>>>> >
>>>> > Matt, Sam, Alia,
>>>> > I've expressed multiple times and in multiple venues my adversity
>>>> (and the motivations) to set this group to design yet another
>>>> encapsulation. I won't repeat it here once again, but I want to re-assert
>>>> that it's still were I stand.
>>>> >
>>>> > I've seen quite a few people in the mailing list here expressing
>>>> similar concerns, but I see that it has not changed the opinion of the
>>>> chairs and the AD on what they believe is the best way to move forward.
>>>> >
>>>> > That said, here are my comments to the charter.
>>>> >
>>>> > I think the design team first goal should be to clearly articulate
>>>> the shortcomings of the current encapsulations proposed to the WG. This
>>>> should be the very first deliverable of the design team. The actual design
>>>> work should start only once the WG has reached consensus on that document.
>>>> Especially considering that some of the encapsulations proposed are being
>>>> deployed, I think articulating the shortcomings will help to make the best
>>>> choice in term of (1) selecting which one will need to be extended, and (2)
>>>> designing the actual extensions.
>>>> >
>>>> > Below are my proposals on how to modify the wording of the charter.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On 10/20/16 1:37 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) wrote:
>>>> >> WG,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> We would like to give you an update on the process in the WG for
>>>> progressing the issue of a data plane encapsulation. The chairs and Alia
>>>> believe that the best way forward is to progress a single encapsulation
>>>> format that addresses the technical concerns raised on the list in the
>>>> recent discussions. This would address the clear overall consensus of the
>>>> Berlin meeting and list for a single encapsulation.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The strategy should be to take one of the three existing
>>>> encapsulations and enhance it to address these concerns. This would become
>>>> the standards track output of the WG. The existing three drafts (GENEVE,
>>>> GUE and VXLAN-GPE) should be forwarded to the IESG as informational after
>>>> the standards track draft specifying the single encapsulation. This
>>>> provides an opportunity for those encapsulations to be documented and
>>>> maintained.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The single encapsulation should be viewed as one that the WG and
>>>> industry can converge around for the future.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> We have created a design team to progress work on a single
>>>> encapsulation that can form the basis or work going forward. The design
>>>> team members are: Michael Schmidt, Uri Elzur, Ilango Ganga, Erik Nordmark,
>>>> Rajeev Manur, Prankaj Garg. Many thanks to these individuals for their help.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Please see below for a draft charter for the design team. Please
>>>> review the charter and send comments to the list by 2nd November 2016.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Regards,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Matthew and Sam
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ====
>>>> >> NVO3 Encapsulation Design team 2016
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Problem Statement
>>>> >> The NVO3 WG charter states that it may produce requirements for
>>>> network virtualization data planes based on encapsulation of virtual
>>>> network traffic over an IP-based underlay data plane. Such requirements
>>>> should consider OAM and security. Based on these requirements the WG will
>>>> select, extend, and/or develop one or more data plane encapsulation
>>>> format(s).
>>>> >>
>>>> >> This has led to drafts describing three encapsulations being adopted
>>>> by the working group:
>>>> >> - draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-03
>>>> >> - draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-04
>>>> >> - draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-02
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Discussion on the list and in face-to-face meetings has identified a
>>>> number of technical problems with each of these encapsulations.
>>>> Furthermore, there was clear consensus at the IETF meeting in Berlin that
>>>> it is undesirable for the working group to progress more than one data
>>>> plane encapsulation. Although consensus could not be reached on the list,
>>>> the overall consensus was for a single encapsulation (RFC2418, Section
>>>> 3.3). Nonetheless there has been resistance to converging on a single
>>>> encapsulation format, although doing so would provide the best benefit to
>>>> the industry.
>>>> >
>>>> > The portion of the last sentence that follows the comma ("although
>>>> doing so would provide the best benefit to the industry") doesn't seem to
>>>> be adding anything to the charter. I'd suggest it could be removed.
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Design Team Goals
>>>> > The design team should clearly articulate in a draft which are the
>>>> shortcomings of the proposed encapsulations, and where they fall short in
>>>> addressing the NVO3 architectural requirements.
>>>> >
>>>> > Once the 'shortcomings' draft has reached consensus of the WG,
>>>> >> The design team should take one of the proposed encapsulations and
>>>> enhance it to address the technical concerns.
>>>> >> Backwards compatibility with the chosen encapsulation and the simple
>>>> evolution of deployed networks as well as applicability to all locations in
>>>> the NVO3 architecture
>>>> > , together with the design goals articulated in the 'shortcoming'
>>>> draft,
>>>> >
>>>> >> are goals. The DT should specifically avoid a design that is
>>>> burdensome on hardware implementations, but should allow future
>>>> extensibility. The chosen design should also operate well with ICMP and in
>>>> ECMP environments. If further extensibility is required, then it should be
>>>> done in such a manner that it does not require the consent of an entity
>>>> outside of the IETF.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Timeline
>>>> >> The design team should
>>>> > first produce the 'shortcomings' draft, get it adopted by the WG, and
>>>> then
>>>> >
>>>> >> produce a first draft describing the proposal by end of January
>>>> 2017. Target adoption by the WG by March 2017 IETF.
>>>> >>
>>>> > (those two dates may need to be adjusted accordingly)
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks,
>>>> > Fabio
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> nvo3 mailing list
>>>> >>
>>>> >> [e-mail]
>>>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > nvo3 mailing list
>>>> > [e-mail]
>>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nvo3 mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nvo3 mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>>>
>>>
>>
>