> -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu] > Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 3:06 PM > To: Xuxiaohu; Tom Herbert > Cc: n...@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [nvo3] [Int-area] Fwd: New Version Notification for > draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-03.txt > > > > On 6/16/2016 11:58 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu] > >> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 12:28 PM > >> To: Xuxiaohu; Tom Herbert > >> Cc: n...@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [nvo3] [Int-area] Fwd: New Version Notification for > >> draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-03.txt > >> > >> On 6/16/2016 8:09 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote: > >>> Hi Tom, > >>> > >>> By the way, I have just had a look at your draft. It seems that this > >>> draft itself > >> has nothing to do with the multi-tenancy capability which is the > >> focus of the > >> NOV3 current charter. > >> > >> FWIW, I agree it would be useful to add text to discuss the relationship to > NVO3. > > Sound fair. An alternative is to pursue this doc in TSVWG or INTAREA first, > > once > this draft is adopted by TSVWG or INTAREA and becomes stable enough, turn to > NVo3 to pursue draft-hy-nvo3-gue-4-nvo. Otherwise, it seems unwise to build > network overlay on a unstable UDP-based tunneling technology. > > I don't see the benefit of moving this document out of NVO3 to obtain this > feedback. You're already getting it from very active members of both TSVWG > and INTAREA in this discussion, and there are already procedures for > cross-area > review.
It depends on whether this document is describing an generic UDP-based tunneling technology or a network overlay technology for multi-tenancy. It seems that this document is the former while draft-hy-nvo3-gue-4-nvo is the latter. Besides, IMHO, cross-area review could never replace the detailed and deep work within the most appropriate WG. Xiaohu > Joe > > > > > Xiaohu > > > >>> In addition, according to section 7 (Motivation for GUE) of this > >>> draft, it seems > >> that GUE is intended to be a generic UDP-based tunneling technology. > >> Therefore, should this draft be pursued in some WGs other than NVO3, > >> e.g., TSVWG or INTAREA. > >> It will definitely get review there, but to some extent it already is > >> - there are TSV and INT area feedback in this thread. > >> > >>> In this way, it would be helpful for us to better understand the > >>> differences > >> between GUE and GRE-in-UDP, and whether the concerns made by Joe > >> Touch (see below) have been addressed successfully, especially when > >> considering the case where the version is set to 1 (i.e., directly > >> encapsulating IP packet over UDP). > >> > >> I agree that these issues should be addressed here too, though - to > >> be fair - some of them already are. > > > >> Joe > >> > >>> > >>> +++++++++ > >>> - stronger checksums > >>> > >>> - fragmentation support > >>> > >>> - signalling support (e.g., to test whether a tunnel is up or > >>> to measure MTUs) > >>> > >>> - support for robust ID fields (related to fragmentation, > >>> e.g., to overcome the limits of IPv4 ID as per RFC 6864) > >>> ++++++++++ > >>> _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
