RE: routing area design team on dataplane encapsulation considerations

Hi Andy,

You mentioned packet size and fragmentation wrt RFC4623, and I just wanted
to note that the idea of tunnel fragmentation goes back even earlier than that
to Section 3.1.7 of RFC2764 which I see that you are also co-author on. I have
cited this in some of my earlier works.

AERO is also using tunnel fragmentation in pretty much the same way, except
that AERO has a comprehensive specification for when to fragment, when not
to fragment, how to test if fragmentation is necessary, and what packet size
ranges are candidates for fragmentation. So, in addition to your earlier works
I hope the design team will have a look at the packet size and fragmentation
aspects of AERO.

Thanks – Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

From: routing-discussion [mailto:routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 6:27 AM
To: Alia Atlas
Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org
Subject: Re: routing area design team on dataplane encapsulation considerations

Alia,

To hijack this discussion back to your original post, I'm very surprised to see no mention of PALS anywhere. We in PALS (and PWE3 before that) have plenty of experience with data plane encapsulations, and we already have solutions for a number of the issues in your list, including ECMP (RFC 6391), packet size and fragmentation (4623), OAM (5085 and others), and a draft on congestion considerations just in the process of finishing up. PWs have been extremely successful in the marketplace. So I hope the design team keeps us in mind as well.

Cheers,
Andy

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>> wrote:
I have chartered a Routing Area Design Team to work on data-plane encapsulation considerations.

I've bcc'd nvo3, sfc, bier, and rtgwg as the most directly relevant.  Please keep any conversation in one place on routing-discussion.

Erik Nordmark has kindly agreed to lead this design team.  The members of the design
team are:

  Albert Tian <albert.tian@ericsson.com<mailto:albert.tian@ericsson.com>>
  Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net<mailto:nordmark@sonic.net>>
  Jesse Gross <jgross@vmware.com<mailto:jgross@vmware.com>>
  Jon Hudson <jon.hudson@gmail.com<mailto:jon.hudson@gmail.com>>
  Larry Kreeger (kreeger) <kreeger@cisco.com<mailto:kreeger@cisco.com>>
  Pankaj Garg <Garg.Pankaj@microsoft.com<mailto:Garg.Pankaj@microsoft.com>>
  Pat Thaler <pthaler@broadcom.com<mailto:pthaler@broadcom.com>>
  Tom Herbert <therbert@google.com<mailto:therbert@google.com>>

The mailing list, rgt-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org<mailto:rgt-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org>, is closed but the archives are
publicly available at:
   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dt-encap-considerations/current/maillist.html

The Design Team is chartered as follows:

There have been multiple efforts over the years that have resulted in new or modified data plane behaviors involving encapsulations. That includes IETF efforts like MPLS, LISP, and TRILL but also industry efforts like Vxlan and NVGRE.  These collectively can be seen as a source of insight into the properties that data planes need to meet.  The IETF is currently working on potentially new encapsulations in NVO3 and SFC and considering working on BIER. In addition there is work on tunneling in the INT area.

This is a short term design team chartered to collect and construct useful advice to parties working on new or modified data plane behaviors that include additional encapsulations.  The goal is for the group to document useful advice gathered from interacting with ongoing efforts.  An Internet Draft will be produced for IETF92 to capture that advice, which will be discussed in RTGWG.

Data plane encapsulations face a set of common issues such as:

  * How to provide entropy for ECMP
  * Issues around packet size and fragmentation/reassembly
  * OAM - what support is needed in an encapsulation format?
  * Security and privacy.
  * QoS
  * Congestion Considerations
  * IPv6 header protection (non-zero UDP checksum over IPv6 issue)
  * Extensibility - e.g., for evolving OAM, security, and/or congestion control
  * Layering of multiple encapsulations e.g., SFC over NVO3 over BIER

The design team will provide advice on those issues. The intention is that even where we have different encapsulations for different purposes carrying different data, each such encapsulation doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel for the above common issues.
The design team will look across the routing area in particular at SFC, NVO3 and BIER. It will not be involved in comparing or analyzing any particular encapsulation formats proposed in those WGs and BoFs but instead focus on common advice.

Regards,
Alia

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
routing-discussion@ietf.org<mailto:routing-discussion@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion