Re: [nvo3] Review of draft-dt-nvo3-encap-01

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Sat, 06 May 2017 17:15 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 AD1D812947D for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 May 2017 10:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 GTd0hC9lBwDh for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 May 2017 10:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22a.google.com (mail-qt0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22a]) (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 86D98120454 for <nvo3@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 May 2017 10:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id j29so25555758qtj.1 for <nvo3@ietf.org>; Sat, 06 May 2017 10:15:44 -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=/taWDhQbX2xCHRbREMGRqfP4PnvDr++n9pFpzUVizsU=; b=f7HdW+DmSPYEfYbzmhwS6IbVPqxDV1726FbVhUfrAZ2D98EZFtfCE1I6qI8F9T+Sz9 4TOAsOpqmO/6bF6nsjtn2751YRWkL9w0Re1Qw/y9/wDCEUNQvPHjziuM6kGDMAeY+oqg fxoBvhyyHdLCP39WKn3omEh91U9FJKm2CkHHG9kH9EQg0IzPeHEXv7XigXW2gSFMRetk iAUt+ZDDtRXaIQXIofdjIH6PA6veH35jRco79wLtuFiOspvToQ8PiCkBIfhfhfCLllcF QpE/A7c8Rs01lEzqx0nfuUNfvBJeIEdIQ5STa4zWP0F4ytZuygoDRJlNK3jfiKBBTggB 3glA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=/taWDhQbX2xCHRbREMGRqfP4PnvDr++n9pFpzUVizsU=; b=mFvjnlFlRM5eIANU1WOzJxew0h4IMdEhD48u/QjH2eaTH7cIfodguffthW/v9Ef73K 6QkUhJoChCEBURwMvI/YOPTLfs+dXmSzUCZ6VioEnnNy3BCvzKZQb4a6YQJriZybdaO4 RrhB3TUD9M+NSsRZSllycbVh2MCgOb93PxdE4BgYfYgq4jJPAThcW968HT0NsF92ych4 RN7IDnOcklWznxW1iwr4J7uU0wShesMSZ0kff8V2CImu9KmKxBULndfNY76NAQJYAB+8 l5poWsWfopn3s7NQ/uhNBCDsBVRg1QmChRC2rZhPkVsBnAr6WSnPW18ZNccudEQLjPT1 HjfA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4IIrpk/dAHA2yi8lNtlkv/K5C1lfXheKbO7i0MVTFbIsv9i6+5 TWpcw/LxWE5HNX8gRgGbVdQ5GndotQIF
X-Received: by 10.200.52.221 with SMTP id x29mr20801127qtb.70.1494090943661; Sat, 06 May 2017 10:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.97.10 with HTTP; Sat, 6 May 2017 10:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 10:15:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S34BjZyCm3Sb4TW-dPMzvKSvcHQ-wuATyL5GOgBNAL9-Kw@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/nZGcTUAGwuBN6zyl0Av0sRGm7oI>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Review of draft-dt-nvo3-encap-01
X-BeenThere: nvo3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 06 May 2017 17:15:46 -0000

- The combinatorics of TLVs and sequential processing requirements are
hard to make efficient in both software and hardware implementations.
Bit-fields do not have this problem

DT:  This is not true according to the HW vendors presented in the  design team.

So the long standing known complexities of sequential TLV parsing,
combinatoric ordering, random access, DOS threats, parser buffer
sizes, dealing with loop free parsing mechanisms like P4 that have
plagued other TLV implementations like IP options IPv6 EH and other
protocols in IETF is now a solved problem? That's awesome!!! But can
you please provide the ***details*** why this is now considered a
solved problem for both software *and* hardware.

Tom