IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00

Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> Fri, 25 September 2015 01:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ghanwani@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C9241B43FD for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 18:24:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 59uM0dBuptn6 for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 18:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]) (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 C8D181B43F7 for <nvo3@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 18:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so2539056wic.0 for <nvo3@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 18:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ZIQWTgYRkVCIU4SgNWucu3Q8i6KoygClNJCiSmjo8hk=; b=xeCMANVUykUJAYHC8wgPBSCcxCfr/TTtvrvOEDAz51IwnHd4M0b1kFj4zZW1Kkd4Qz +S6F47nOiAZYTk94CbYj9mOiM1Ai3kYxgtkL/6e/hA6Htj0t48ROHG4SwKipCJr4ZoXU CvvLo2/TAg8fjNcVPrsk4g9Euk/yj9fLHPm/YTgeMX4vqV1uGYs6xdaBbIc9+csKk6Bk 8zy0f2b4uqTIL0L9y+/9dApLzJvLHEd05sYx1TRNueqmgNGo6ApbdaH3vXfiXy6U+HlK ZnUTmFqg6F0u6FpS6x9/0y6Thzp4NN8cxYoZ51j0DoxYUSBruQITE6ZV1y6cduXUu9sV xdag==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.58.40 with SMTP id n8mr3255921wjq.134.1443144251123; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 18:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: ghanwani@gmail.com
Received: by 10.27.33.71 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 18:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D229EA4B.168C5C%kreeger@cisco.com>
References: <D225E095.167E03%kreeger@cisco.com> <E07C2F3C-0733-4A0B-B892-CDA78670FD25@broadcom.com> <D225E555.167EAA%kreeger@cisco.com> <B70DFDA297828A4190C5E83DA07C450631ED52D3@SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <D225F949.1680CA%kreeger@cisco.com> <C75E1FFA-C7C2-4BB7-A143-51035EF4EC5F@broadcom.com> <D226E2EA.168591%kreeger@cisco.com> <CA+-tSzz5hBjknNXktgDeP8pSLOLvj1aJV5T0znXtsKqVB2xjhw@mail.gmail.com> <D2287BB3.168731%kreeger@cisco.com> <CA+-tSzxJ-memh8c4En59VGpM_5z=OvUpkNP==yXOD_v7jYitWw@mail.gmail.com> <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D571F762E@dfweml701-chm> <CALx6S35-+6gr2YmU3q-BFPHyhE+CpNqx2y_8WfvPPmPK2zt67g@mail.gmail.com> <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D571F76A0@dfweml701-chm> <D229EA4B.168C5C%kreeger@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 18:24:10 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: z5iEpWjC3rfChibYtlVoc9sa_0w
Message-ID: <CA+-tSzxihpQjbdgXYMH5oiefy8+4WQrpbVei4x5v0vvYF7Daxw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
To: "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <kreeger@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7ba96dfe72afc70520883425"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/sehpTI5MxhmHyokt0pGa_-YP3sA>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>, Lucy yong <lucy.yong@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] destination UDP port : draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00
X-BeenThere: nvo3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 01:24:14 -0000

Larry,

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Larry Kreeger (kreeger) <kreeger@cisco.com>
wrote:
>
>
> If I can restate what I think you two agree on, it is:  If VXLAN evolves
> independently from VXLAN GPE, then a VXLAN GPE endpoint that understands
> only how to be backward compatible with RFC7348 VXLAN will not be able to
> be compatible with the unknown evolution of RFC748.
>
> For this reason, I would discourage anyone from taking RFC7348 VXLAN on a
> separate evolutionary path from VXLAN than what VXLAN GPE is.  I would
> encourage any IETF work on evolving VXLAN to instead evolve VXLAN GPE
> which has an actual version field to prevent unknown forwarding behavior
> from occurring if a VXLAN GPE version 0 endpoint receives an evolved (next
> version) of VXLAN GPE.
>

It is for that reason that I suggested tightening the text.

Anoop

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email