Fully agree Tomas’s points (below).

Lucy

From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of thomas.mo...@orange.com
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 10:37 AM
To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

Hi Wim,

2015-11-13, Henderickx, Wim (Wim):
Thomas, we need a solution that is implementable and will scale in 
control/data-plane. As such the solution I outline is standardised today and 
does not need new extensions in control/data-plane. Hence informational draft 
and can be implemented if there is market demand.

The above argument would fully make sense to me if support MPLS/MPLS/(UDP or 
GRE) was common place in ToRs or vswitches.


With respect to MAC you need to address both directions and does not make sense 
to manage this if it is not required/doe snot add value.

On VXLAN and the Ethernet header: it looks to me that addressing both direction 
is just a matter of documenting in the draft (if not already there) what is the 
expected behavior for VXLAN/NVGRE. But VXLAN and NVGRE are not the only encaps 
proposed in the specs anyway.

Compared to 3-label option C, my understanding is that the added-value is to 
not require the support of an MPLS/MPLS/(UDP or GRE) encap in ToRs and 
vswitches.

The right trade-off to make may in fact depend on whether you prefer:
(a) a new dataplane stitching behavior on DC ASBRs (the behavior specified in 
this draft)
or (b) an evolution of the encaps on the vswitches and ToRs to support 
MPLS/MPLS/(UDP or GRE)

Note that the 3-label option C approach with an MPLS/MPLS/(UDP or GRE) encap 
also requires the introduction of a control plane in the DC (possibly in an 
'SDN' controller) to learn and advertise the middle MPLS label.  Whether one 
consider that the best path to a working solution may also depend on the 
context.

Best,

-Thomas




From: Thomas Morin <thomas.mo...@orange.com<mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com>>
Organization: Orange
Date: Friday 13 November 2015 at 09:57
To: Wim Henderickx 
<wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com>>
Cc: "bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

Hi Wim,

I agree on the analysis that this proposal is restricted to implementations 
that supports the chosen encap with non-IANA ports (which may be hard to 
achieve for instance on hardware implementations, as you suggest), or to 
context where managing multiple IPs would be operationally viable.

However, it does not seem obvious to me how the alternative you propose 
[relying on 3-label option C with an MPLS/MPLS/(UDP|GRE) encap] addresses the 
issue of whether the encap behavior is supported or not (e.g. your typical ToR 
chipset possibly may not support this kind of encap,  and even software-based 
switches may not be ready to support that today).

My take is that having different options to adapt to various implementations 
constraints we may have would have value.

(+ one question below on VXLAN...)

-Thomas


2015-11-12, Henderickx, Wim (Wim):
On VXLAN/NVGRE, do you challenge the fact that they would be used with a dummy 
MAC address that would be replaced by the right MAC by a sender based on an ARP 
request when needed ?


Is the above the issue you had in mind about VXLAN and NVGRE ?

WH> yes

I you don't mind me asking : why do you challenge that ?



_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Reply via email to