Hi Yves, -----Original Message----- From: nvo3-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yves Hertoghs (yhertogh) Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 8:14 AM To: Lucy yong; Dino Farinacci; Roger Jørgensen Cc: Fabio Maino (fmaino); n...@ietf.org; Noel Chiappa; lisp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [nvo3] [lisp] New Version Notification for draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-00.txt
Lucy, inline On 26/09/13 21:51, "Lucy yong" <lucy.y...@huawei.com> wrote: >Dino, > >Current VXLAN format is much simpler format compared to LISP format. To >use it with LISP protocol, do you need to modify VXLAN format to >support LISP features? > >Regards, >Lucy > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lucy yong >Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 2:44 PM >To: 'Dino Farinacci'; Roger Jørgensen >Cc: Fabio Maino; n...@ietf.org; Noel Chiappa; lisp@ietf.org >Subject: RE: [nvo3] [lisp] New Version Notification for >draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-00.txt > >Please see inline. > >-----Original Message----- >From: nvo3-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >Dino Farinacci >Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 1:57 PM >To: Roger Jørgensen >Cc: Fabio Maino; n...@ietf.org; Noel Chiappa; lisp@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [nvo3] [lisp] New Version Notification for >draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-00.txt > >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> >>wrote: >>>> Hi Noel, >>>> there's certainly no intention of keeping this out of the LISP WG, >>>>since this is not part of the charter we just thought an individual >>>>submission was more appropriate. >>>> >>>> We just started from the very practical consideration of the >>>>proliferation of encapsulations in the data center, and the lack of >>>>multiprotocol support in both VXLAN and LISP. >>> >>> Sorry I have to disagree. The protocols that LISP supports are *IP* >>>protocols and the protocols that VXLAN supports are *the rest* since >>>it is layer-2 solution. So this appears to be just rearranging the >>>deck chairs. >> >> This trouble me... why do we want to mix LISP and VXLAN? What is the >> gain in it? I only smell complexity. L2 in L3 over L3? > >We shouldn't but let the authors reply. If you want to carry more than >IP protocols in LISP, then you use the L2 UDP port and carry MAC >addresses in LISP. You can carry all of MAC, IPv4, and IPv6 EIDs with >one control-plane, the LISP mapping database using LISP-DDT. > >[Lucy] Agree. This is one way to implement L2 or L3 overlay by using >LISP protocol. However, Overlay virtual networks that use VXLAN >encapsulation may be implemented in other way too, e.g. SDN controller, >not LISP protocol. Therefore, there is a desire to extend VXLAN >encapsulation to support multiple protocols beside L2 only and make it >a generic overlay encapsulation schematics to support an overlay application. The NVO3 WG has a consensus (I believe) that the functions of mapping overlay addresses to underlay addresses (NVE to NVA, or NVE to NVE control plane), and the function that actually keeps that mapping information (NVA control plane) should be kept separate. In that way, an SDN northbound interface on the NVA solves that problem for you. More-over this allows one to choose its own NVE-to-NVA CP and NVE-NVE data plane/controlplane, while the SDN northbound model stays the same. [Lucy] SDN controller in my text is about NVA. Nothing to do with SDN northbound interface. We may cross each other's view. Yes, the nvo3 architecture/framework specifies the model and these components. That model allows NVE and NVA to be separated and have a protocol in between to convey the mapping information. The WG does not confine a protocol solution yet. That is my point. > >BTW: IMO: using UDP port to indicate payload type is not elegant >design, but acceptable for history reason only. Why ? [Lucy] TCP/UDP port is used for demultiplexing transport connection or identifying a service. Demultiplex payload type does not fit into neither purpose and consumes the port numbers. Please take a look. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use/ Regards, Lucy > >Lucy > >> How will a mix of LISP and VXLAN benefit the administrators of >> datacenters, end-users in the end? > >The VXLAN authors have to answer that. They came afterwards (by 5 years). > >Dino > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE >> rog...@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! >> http://www.jorgensen.no | ro...@jorgensen.no >> >> (I really start to really dislike gmails new better editor) > >_______________________________________________ >nvo3 mailing list >n...@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >_______________________________________________ >nvo3 mailing list >n...@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list n...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
