On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Tom Herbert <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Hi Tom, >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Herbert <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Templin, Fred L >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hi Lucy, >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Lucy yong [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 7:48 AM >>>>>> To: Templin, Fred L; [email protected]; [email protected] >>>>>> Subject: RE: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Getting back to our earlier discussion, IP-in-UDP and GUE are currently >>>>>> two half-solutions. Put them together and you get a whole >>>>>> solution. >>>>>> Keep them apart, and someone else is going to have to write a whole >>>>>> solution sometime down the line from now. >>>>>> [Lucy] GUE can support IP payload. Don't know why you state that they >>>>>> are two half-solutions. Is the compression a mandatory >>>>>> requirement here? I think that IP-in-UDP proposal as a compression >>>>>> version is better that use of first nibble. However we need clarify >>>>>> what limitation and constraint the compression solution has. >>>>> >>>>> GUE is missing header compression, and IP-in-UDP is missing tunnel >>>>> fragmentation. That is what I mean when I say that if combined you >>>>> get a whole solution. >>>>> >>>> Adding this header compression just adds a whole bunch of complexity >>>> to the protocol to save a grand total of four bytes for what is likely >>>> a very narrow use case. >>> >>>>This is not applicable when GUE is used for >>>> network virtualization, >>> >>> >>> I don't think GUE is a replacement or even an improvement for VXLAN >>> encapsulation. >>> >> All the arguments as to why VXLAN is insufficient in multi-tenant >> deployments was made in nvo3. Please read those and the GUE drafts >> (draft-hy-nvo3-gue-4-nvo-01, >> draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-00, > > I read this draft, I could not see any such arguments. It just > mentions VXLAN as a reference like other things. > > If true, it should explicitly address this issue. > I am not sure if it can say more than what it is that is a generic > encapsulation techniques that can be used in the data center to tunnel > things. > > But VXLAN is designed to provide VM-to-VM communication. > So the design criteria is completely different in these two techniques. > GUE has been adopted by nvo3 network virtualization data plane, along with Geneve and VXLAN-GPE-- VXLAN has not. Again if you have comments on that use of GUE please take them to nvo3. This thread is about a generic modification to GUE without respect to the network virtualization use case.
>> and >> draft-hy-gue-4-secure-transport-01). If you have any comments or >> questions take them to the nvo3 list. >> >>> While VXLAN is 1-N type of tunneling, GUE is 1-1. >>> >> I don't understand what this means. > > The key is in VM-to-VM communication. The other VM could be under any > VTEP or NVE. > > Regards, > > Behcet >> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Behcet >>>> we are encapsulating something other than IP, >>>> we need OAM, or using any other feature of GUE. In my deployment, I >>>> don't have any use case for that since minimally I will be using >>>> remote checksum offload option because that does give a material >>>> performance advantage. >>>> >>>> The premise of GUE is simple, it has a simple header that encapsulates >>>> any IP protocol expressed by IP protocol number and allows optional >>>> extensions and control packets-- let's keep it simple! If saving those >>>> four bytes is really important in some deployment and GUE is still >>>> needed in certain case, then just use GUE and IP-in-UDP in tandem. >>>> >>>> Tom >>>> >>>>> Thanks - Fred >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> >>>>>> Lucy >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks - Fred >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>> > However, if GUE payload is >>>>>> > IP, it is OK to inspect the first nibble of the payload to determine >>>>>> > IPv4 or IPv6 because this aligns with IP protocol. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Thanks, >>>>>> > Lucy >>>>>> > >>>>>> > - Stewart >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > Int-area mailing list >>>>>> > [email protected] >>>>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >>>>>> > >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > Int-area mailing list >>>>>> > [email protected] >>>>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Int-area mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Int-area mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
