IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nvo3] [Int-area] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-03.txt

Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> Mon, 20 June 2016 04:05 UTC

Return-Path: <xuxiaohu@huawei.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 CC98A12D93D; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 21:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.647
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-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 vZ3z4Rh4I4VN; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 21:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3531B12D941; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 21:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CRD15090; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 04:05:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 05:05:12 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 12:04:46 +0800
From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Thread-Topic: [nvo3] [Int-area] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-03.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRyFC7WM0h16H1OkaT+9tikHhWg5/tNu3w//9/n4CAAJLswP///SEAgARfzID//4ZgAAARld6A
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 04:04:45 +0000
Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D5651A4@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <20160610171451.30437.44413.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALx6S34_ba2kBhUY7keEMmPO3fTRAAQsCkyGiy47=NnPm8xgug@mail.gmail.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D5647FB@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <CALx6S37K2H+SuEN+5Nmi-GOX0nX-k34YQt0anWJWTUBpBZZGew@mail.gmail.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D564ABD@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D564B19@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <57637C4B.3040603@isi.edu> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D564BD3@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <5763A13F.9090009@isi.edu> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D564C44@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <57641A16.7000902@isi.edu> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0D56516D@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <57675F6A.2060802@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <57675F6A.2060802@isi.edu>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.99.55]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090206.57676B7C.0029, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 738edd86f1cc59daf0dfa3ff8c2bcb52
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/pi1HHIwNsx-DOTbTxrnm1Q7QZGo>
Cc: "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] [Int-area] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-03.txt
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: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 04:05:23 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch@isi.edu]
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 11:14 AM
> To: Xuxiaohu; Tom Herbert
> Cc: nvo3@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [nvo3] [Int-area] Fwd: New Version Notification for
> draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-03.txt
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/19/2016 7:47 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
> > Sure. That's why we usually need to determine a WG which is more
> > suitable for a given draft firstly in the IETF. If you firmly believe
> > the more suitable WG for draft-ietf-nvo3-gue is NVO3, rather than
> > INTAREA and TSVWG, please give your rationale
> 
> My rationale is simple - it's sufficient and that's where it already is a WG doc.

There was a famous saying: " it's never too late to mend!"

> If that were not the case, you'd have a stronger argument.

It has been said clearly before, " this draft itself has nothing to do with the multi-tenancy capability which is the focus of the NOV3 current charter. In addition, according to section 7 (Motivation for GUE) of this draft, it seems that GUE is intended to be a generic UDP-based tunneling technology. Therefore, should this draft be pursued in some WGs other than NVO3, e.g., TSVWG or INTAREA. In this way, it would be helpful for us to better understand the differences between GUE and GRE-in-UDP, and whether the concerns made by Joe Touch (see below) have been addressed successfully, especially when considering the case where the version is set to 1 (i.e., directly encapsulating IP packet over UDP).
+++++++++
	- stronger checksums

	- fragmentation support
	
	- signalling support (e.g., to test whether a tunnel is up or
	to measure MTUs)

	- support for robust ID fields (related to fragmentation,
	e.g., to overcome the limits of IPv4 ID as per RFC 6864)
++++++++++"

Xiaohu

> But I really don't care all that much. If the chairs want to shift WGs, then they
> can make the case for a call for adoption elsewhere.
> 
> However, given the substantial review this doc has already received both here
> and from TSV reviewers, I think that's largely wasted effort.
> 
> Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email