I support this document for publication.
It is critical for progressing documents in BESS.

As part of the last call review, the authors may consider the following 
comments. Please note that these should not be taken as showstoppers:


  1.  VXLAN dest port must be 4789

The current text does not make port 4789 mandatory, but given where we are, I 
don’t think that “SHOULD” makes sense anymore. That is:

OLD:
“Destination Port: IANA has assigned the value 4789 for the VXLAN UDP port, and 
this value SHOULD be used by default as the destination UDP port. Some early 
implementations of VXLAN have used other values for the destination port. To 
enable interoperability with these implementations, the destination port SHOULD 
be configurable.”

NEW:
“Destination Port: IANA has assigned the value 4789 for the VXLAN UDP port, and 
this value MUST be used as the destination UDP port.”



  1.  Reserved vs unassigned bits in VXLAN Flags

Section 8.2 initializes the VXLAN Flags registry with most bits set as 
“reserved”. Given that some of those bits are going to be used by some BESS 
specs, I wonder if the registry should initialize the following bits as 
“unassigned” instead:

Bits 0-3
Bits 5-15

Leaving the rest as reserved.
This would be a better indication to implementors to request bits in that space 
when writing RFCs.

Reference about “reserved” vs “unassigned”:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8126#section-6


Thanks.
Jorge

From: Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, June 6, 2025 at 5:07 AM
To: NVO3 <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, 
nvo3-chairs <[email protected]>
Subject: [nvo3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-nvo3-rfc7348bis-00
This email begins a working group last call for draft-ietf-nvo3-rfc7348bis-00 - 
Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for Overlaying 
Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 
Networks<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-rfc7348bis/>

Please review the draft and send any comments to the NVO3 mailing list, 
particularly if you do or do not support this draft being published as a 
standards track RFC.

An IPR poll was conducted as a part of the very recent adoption poll for the 
draft. However, if you have subsequently become aware of any IPR that was not 
previously declared, please respond.

There are no IPR disclosures published on the datatracker against either this 
draft or RFC7348, and I received no IPR disclosures during WG adoption.

This WG last call closes on Monday 23rd June 2025.

Best regards

Matthew
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to