[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

SPRING                                                     D. Dukes, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                               C. Filsfils
Intended status: Informational                              P. Camarillo
Expires: March 18, 2019                              Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                      September 14, 2018

     Comparative Analysis of MTU overhead in the context of SPRING


   This document provides an apples-to-apples comparative analysis of
   MTU overhead in the context of SPRING.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 18, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Dukes, et al.            Expires March 18, 2019                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                 CAMTUSPRING                September 2018

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Stateless IPv6 Encapsulation Within a VPN Context . . . .   2
       1.1.1.  Analysis of MTU overhead  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3

1.  Introduction

   This document provides an apples-to-apples comparative analysis of
   MTU overhead in the context of SPRING.

   The first version of this document concentrates on stateless IPv6
   encapsulation within a VPN context.

1.1.  Stateless IPv6 Encapsulation Within a VPN Context

   A VPN context provides routing and forwarding isolation at interface
   granularity on a Provider Edge (PE) node.

   Encapsulation between PE nodes is used to forward traffic between the
   VPN contexts of remote nodes.  Typically, this encapsulation encodes
   the remote node address and VPN context.

   Stateless encapsulation requires no additional state be propagated
   between PE and provider (P) nodes.

1.1.1.  Analysis of MTU overhead

   VXLAN [RFC7348], LISP [RFC6830], GTP and SRv6
   [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming] encapsulations are
   considered as they provide stateless encapsulation while supporting
   VPN contexts.

   VXLAN, LISP, and GTP encapsulate all add VPN context via UDP.

   o  VXLAN: 56 bytes : IPv6(40) + UDP(8) + VXLAN(8)

   o  LISP: 56 bytes : IPv6(40) + UDP(8) + LISP(8)

   o  GTP: 56 bytes : IPv6(40) + UDP(8) + GTP(8)

   SRv6 encapsulates and includes the VPN context with the destination

   o  SRv6: 40 bytes : IPv6(40)

Dukes, et al.            Expires March 18, 2019                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                 CAMTUSPRING                September 2018

   The SRv6 VPN SID encodes location and VPN context so IPv6
   encapsulation is all that's required for the SRv6 case, i.e. there is
   no Segment Routing Extension Header (SRH)
   [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] required.

   SRv6 results in a lower overhead than VXLAN, LISP, and GTP for
   stateless encapsulation within a VPN context.

2.  Informative References

              Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J.,
              daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6
              Network Programming", draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-
              programming-05 (work in progress), July 2018.

              Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and
              d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
              (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-14 (work in
              progress), June 2018.

   [RFC6830]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,

   [RFC7348]  Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
              L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
              eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
              Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
              Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,

Authors' Addresses

   Darren Dukes (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   Email: ddukes@cisco.com

Dukes, et al.            Expires March 18, 2019                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                 CAMTUSPRING                September 2018

   Clarence Filsfils
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com

   Pablo Camarillo
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   Email: pcamaril@cisco.com

Dukes, et al.            Expires March 18, 2019                 [Page 4]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/