Subject: [nvo3] NVO3 WG Adoption of draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-04

From: Benson Schliesser <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 19:10:28 -0400

The chairs have confirmed that NVO3 WG consensus is in favor of adopting 
draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-04. All co-authors have provided statements 
regarding IPR disclosure (refs below). At this time the draft is adopted.

Authors, please resubmit the document as draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00.

Thanks,
-Benson & Matthew

draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe 	IPR Disc
P. Quinn 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/p4cdsI5sVWaZqv9pmbrB7AVptB4
R. Manur 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/PRoWM3VI-Y1yI74q_hv8CWvvZq8
L. Kreeger 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/oheLgM9wcQTl7eErkg-DBSx0ykE
D. Lewis 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/R1ravkQ59wsZ_hgcJ3oIpaKF3cE
F. Maino 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/Ech5wm2BLvmkL_GJ3T5KYo-QvFk
M. Smith 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/ClVZ9F2wEvj_hSO-QJslW5maumM
P. Agarwal 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/PAjtJAn4NiuKgCKQP25Bf2UdSEw
L. Yong 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/Jm6MMCnT-qgAaq9XCbIRakmqejg
X. Xu 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/9yDBzTM31AOV7M69aAvYa9llaig
U. Elzur 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/H1ZkebalmxiM-xeOjkFOUWu81w8
P. Garg 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/ZG3XMdfPwOOiOoaPqh6q4E6D7RM
D. Melman 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/LQc3O4MAIE4ropCdCBY7PvxZJvE

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 15:36:26 -0500

Hi Benson,

I was wondering what is NSH in this draft? It is referenced as an unnamed
unknown draft from 2014?
How could such an NSH be treated as different protocol like IPv4, IPv6 and
Ethernet?

Isn't it puzzling?

Did the chairs know about this?

Regards,

Behcet

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Benson Schliesser <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>  The chairs have confirmed that NVO3 WG consensus is in favor of adopting draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-04.
> All co-authors have provided statements regarding IPR disclosure (refs
> below). At this time the draft is adopted.
>
>    draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe IPR Disc  P. Quinn
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/p4cdsI5sVWaZqv9pmbrB7AVptB4  R.
> Manur
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/PRoWM3VI-Y1yI74q_hv8CWvvZq8  L.
> Kreeger
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/oheLgM9wcQTl7eErkg-DBSx0ykE  D.
> Lewis
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/R1ravkQ59wsZ_hgcJ3oIpaKF3cE  F.
> Maino
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/Ech5wm2BLvmkL_GJ3T5KYo-QvFk  M.
> Smith
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/ClVZ9F2wEvj_hSO-QJslW5maumM  P.
> Agarwal
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/PAjtJAn4NiuKgCKQP25Bf2UdSEw  L.
> Yong
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/Jm6MMCnT-qgAaq9XCbIRakmqejg  X.
> Xu https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/9yDBzTM31AOV7M69aAvYa9llaig  U.
> Elzur
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/H1ZkebalmxiM-xeOjkFOUWu81w8  P.
> Garg
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/ZG3XMdfPwOOiOoaPqh6q4E6D7RM  D.
> Melman
> _______________________________________________
> nvo3 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>
>

---

From: Benson Schliesser <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 21:52:15 +0100

Hi, Behcet.

Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> I was wondering what is NSH in this draft? It is referenced as an
> unnamed unknown draft from 2014?

I believe that NSH refers to the protocol described by 
draft-ietf-sfc-nsh. (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-nsh/)

Thank you for reviewing the draft and noticing that the reference was 
outdated. I anticipate that the co-authors will update the text 
accordingly in a future revision.

Cheers,
-Benson

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:03:25 -0500

Hi Benson,

Joe Touch wrote this on intarea list:

There is no reason for having the GUE header differentiate between
payload=IPv4 and payload=IPv6. The IP version is addressed by the
version field of the IP header. If GUE encapsulates both type of IP the
same way (and it should), it should NOT differentiate between them in
its (GUE) header.

I think the same applies to gpe header.

Plus the issues on the "NSH" protocol.

Regards,

Behcet

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Benson Schliesser
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> I believe that NSH refers to the protocol described by draft-ietf-sfc-nsh.
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-nsh/)
>
> outdated. I anticipate that the co-authors will update the text accordingly
> in a future revision.
>
> Cheers,
> -Benson

---

From: Diego Garcia del Rio <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 15:30:00 -0700

Given Ethernet's ethertype provides both an IPv4 and IPv6 type, one could
argue that these are indeed needed or at least useful. For hardware based
end-points, it also removes one branch in the decision tree on how to parse
the subsequent headers, after all, IPv4 and IPv6 only share the version
field when it comes to packet formats.

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> draft-ietf-sfc-nsh.

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:01:19 -0500

> Plus the issues on the "NSH" protocol.

Curiously if you look at the nsh draft, Section 3.2,

NSH Base Header

also has a next protocol field with the same encoding.

Anybody understands what is going on?

Behcet

---

From: "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 17:02:08 +0000

Hi Behcet,

The idea is to allow VXLAN GPE to either encapsulate
IPv4/v6/Ethernet/futureThings directly, or insert an NSH header between
VXLAN GPE and those.  To do this, VXLAN GPE indicates NSH, then NSH
indicates what the next protocol is (e.g. IPv4/v6/Ethernet/futureThings).

 - Larry

---

From: "Paul Quinn (paulq)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:13:39 +0000

> On Apr 29, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Yes, the concept is that you don't know what you want to carry via GPE.  Today it might be v4, v6, ethernet, NSH or something else.  Tomorrow, who knows?  But more importantly, we need to enable that stacking to occur.

The format of NSH is orthogonal -- as is the format of Ethernet for that matter.  From an outer header (i.e. VXLAN-GPE or other) you need to be able to identify the inner protocol.  

Paul

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:36:58 -0500

> Yes, the concept is that you don't know what you want to carry via GPE.  Today it might be v4, v6, ethernet, NSH or something else.  Tomorrow, who knows?  But more importantly, we need to enable th…

Please convince not me but Joe Touch on v4 and v6 thing.

> The format of NSH is orthogonal -- as is the format of Ethernet for that matter.  From an outer header (i.e. VXLAN-GPE or other) you need to be able to identify the inner protocol.

Are we talking about VM-to-VM communication? I think that is what
VXLAN was designed for.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 19:09:06 +0000

Regarding Joe Touch's comment about explicitly NOT indicating IPv4 vs IPv6
in the Next Protocol (only indicating IP), I don't see what the advantages
of doing this are.  It seems more philosophical.

By indicating IPv4/IPv6 in the next protocol, it allows implementations to
only make one decision before parsing the IP header.  By doing two steps
NP->IP->IPv4/v6, it adds one more parsing step to the implementation, for
no gain that I can think of.

As Diego pointed out earlier, there is already a precedent in Ethernet for
indicating the IP version in the next protocol from the layer below it.

 - Larry

On 4/29/15 11:36 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Yes, the concept is that you don't know what you want to carry via GPE.
>> Today it might be v4, v6, ethernet, NSH or something else.  Tomorrow,
>>who knows?  But more importantly, we need to enable that stacking to
>>occur.
>>
>
>
>> The format of NSH is orthogonal -- as is the format of Ethernet for
>>that matter.  From an outer header (i.e. VXLAN-GPE or other) you need to
>>be able to identify the inner protocol.
>>
>

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:32:14 -0500

Is gpe talking about encapsulation of inner packets, i.e. data plane?
If yes then it is like GUE. Then one would ask why do we need another
GUE?

Looking at the abstract which says

changes to the VXLAN header

I think the answer is no.

I would understand a few flags like OAM that you defined as extensions to VXLAN.

But I have trouble understanding next protocol field.
I think VXLAN encapsulation does not need next protocol field because
what is being encapsulated is completely defined in RFC7348.

If in the future the need arises that something like NSH also needs to
be defined then the best way to do is to.define RFC7348bis and add it
there.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: Benson Schliesser <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:50:32 +0100

Hi, Behcet. Just speaking as an individual: I understand the purpose of GPE
as being the addition of a protocol field to VXLAN. It is not specifically
a IPv4/v6 attribute, but more general. If you don't understand the general
case of how or why v4 and v6 are multiplexed with the lower-layer protocol
field then I don't think that's specifically germane to the nvo3 mailing
list.

As for comparing GUE and VXLAN-GPE, that seems like a fair discussion to
have. But I don't currently see any especially constructive way to do that.

Cheers,
-Benson

On Wednesday, April 29, 2015, Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> <[email-masked] <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > On 4/29/15 11:36 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <[email-masked]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Paul Quinn (paulq) <[email-masked]
> <javascript:;>>
> >>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Apr 29, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]
> <javascript:;>>
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Behcet Sarikaya
> >>>><[email-masked] <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Benson,
> >>>>>

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 13:56:25 -0500

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Benson Schliesser
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> as being the addition of a protocol field to VXLAN.

This is where I have concerns.
Protocol field is defined for IP header. Ethernet also has a similar
field (called Ether Type).
In RFC 7348, it is clearly defined that the next protocol is UDP
(value 17) for VXLAN.
Protocol field values are defined in
http://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml

Yes, there is IPv4 (value 4) and IPv6 (value 41). Just like Ethernet
Ether Type has values, I think someone mentioned it.

GPE draft is introducing another registry for the protocol field,.

There must be some reason why they defined protocol field only for
IPv4/v6 not e.g. for UDP.

VXLAN is UDP encapsulation, it is not a different protocol.

It seems like Paul has different opinion on these, because I noticed
he added protocol field to his NSH draft also.

Benson, is it OK to ask from Paul why?
Or you want to ban me from asking these types of technical questions?

> It is not specifically a
> IPv4/v6 attribute, but more general.

Please see above.
> If you don't understand the general

I made my point above, please see above.
> have. But I don't currently see any especially constructive way to do that.

Can you please then explain it? How are these two compared?
I am saying they are different things. GUE is currently being
discussed in Intarea list.

Regards,

Behcet
>> >>>> On Apr 29, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Behcet Sarikaya
>> >>>> <[email-masked]>
>> >>>>wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>><[email-masked]> wrote:
>> >>>>> Hi Benson,
>> >>>>>

---

From: Benson Schliesser <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 01:01:55 +0100

Hi, Behcet.

Still writing as an individual:

After reading your email (quoted below) several times, I suspect that you
don't understand the way layering works. I'm not sure if this is just in
the context of what NVO3 is doing or in the general case, but I think it is
well understood by others that have been contributing here. It's up to them
to decide how much they want to respond to your questions. But I
personally don't have the time to provide you this education.

Now writing as co-chair:

You can certainly ask people to help you understand and/or explain their
drafts. I'm very tolerant of open discussion on the list as long as it is
constructive toward the WG goals.

NVO3 has adopted GUE and VXLAN-GPE, and is in process of adopting GENEVE
pending an IPR statement from one of the authors. These are potentially
implemented as overlay data plane encaps.

As a WG chair I am guided by WG consensus. The consensus seems to favor
these protocols as WG work items. I'm not yet aware of any specific issues
that need to be addressed by the authors.

-Benson

On Thursday, April 30, 2015, Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>> wrote:

> >> I would understand a few flags like OAM that you defined as extensions
> to
> >> VXLAN.
> >>
> >> > By indicating IPv4/IPv6 in the next protocol, it allows
> implementations
> >> > to
> >> >>>>> version field of the IP header. If GUE encapsulates both type of
> IP
> >> >>>>>the