draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-11.txt   draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-12.txt 
Network Working Group J. Gross, Ed. Network Working Group J. Gross, Ed.
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track I. Ganga, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track I. Ganga, Ed.
Expires: September 9, 2019 Intel Expires: September 12, 2019 Intel
T. Sridhar, Ed. T. Sridhar, Ed.
VMware VMware
March 08, 2019 March 11, 2019
Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation
draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-11 draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-12
Abstract Abstract
Network virtualization involves the cooperation of devices with a Network virtualization involves the cooperation of devices with a
wide variety of capabilities such as software and hardware tunnel wide variety of capabilities such as software and hardware tunnel
endpoints, transit fabrics, and centralized control clusters. As a endpoints, transit fabrics, and centralized control clusters. As a
result of their role in tying together different elements in the result of their role in tying together different elements in the
system, the requirements on tunnels are influenced by all of these system, the requirements on tunnels are influenced by all of these
components. Flexibility is therefore the most important aspect of a components. Flexibility is therefore the most important aspect of a
tunnel protocol if it is to keep pace with the evolution of the tunnel protocol if it is to keep pace with the evolution of the
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 8 skipping to change at page 3, line 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.1. Data Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.1. Data Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.1.1. Inter-Data Center Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.1.1. Inter-Data Center Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.2. Data Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.2. Data Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.3. Authentication of NVE peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.3. Authentication of NVE peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.4. Options Interpretation by Transit Devices . . . . . . . . 28 6.4. Options Interpretation by Transit Devices . . . . . . . . 28
6.5. Multicast/Broadcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.5. Multicast/Broadcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.6. Control Plane Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.6. Control Plane Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Networking has long featured a variety of tunneling, tagging, and Networking has long featured a variety of tunneling, tagging, and
other encapsulation mechanisms. However, the advent of network other encapsulation mechanisms. However, the advent of network
virtualization has caused a surge of renewed interest and a virtualization has caused a surge of renewed interest and a
skipping to change at page 16, line 50 skipping to change at page 16, line 50
transit devices MUST NOT drop packets as a result of encountering transit devices MUST NOT drop packets as a result of encountering
unknown options, including those with the 'C' bit set. unknown options, including those with the 'C' bit set.
o Some options may be defined in such a way that the position in the o Some options may be defined in such a way that the position in the
option list is significant. Options MUST NOT be changed by option list is significant. Options MUST NOT be changed by
transit devices. transit devices.
o An option SHOULD NOT be dependent upon any other option in the o An option SHOULD NOT be dependent upon any other option in the
packet, i.e., options can be processed independent of one another. packet, i.e., options can be processed independent of one another.
An option MUST NOT affect the parsing or interpretation of any An option MUST NOT affect the parsing or interpretation of any
other option. other option. However, option processing by tunnel endpoints may
result in the packet being dropped. Options may also be used in
conjunction with each other or combined with packet data but this
processing is done above the encapsulation layer.
When designing a Geneve option, it is important to consider how the When designing a Geneve option, it is important to consider how the
option will evolve in the future. Once an option is defined it is option will evolve in the future. Once an option is defined it is
reasonable to expect that implementations may come to depend on a reasonable to expect that implementations may come to depend on a
specific behavior. As a result, the scope of any future changes must specific behavior. As a result, the scope of any future changes must
be carefully described upfront. be carefully described upfront.
Unexpectedly significant interoperability issues may result from Unexpectedly significant interoperability issues may result from
changing the length of an option that was defined to be a certain changing the length of an option that was defined to be a certain
size. A particular option is specified to have either a fixed size. A particular option is specified to have either a fixed
skipping to change at page 30, line 4 skipping to change at page 30, line 12
The following individuals were authors of an earlier version of this The following individuals were authors of an earlier version of this
document and made significant contributions: document and made significant contributions:
Pankaj Garg Pankaj Garg
Microsoft Corporation Microsoft Corporation
1 Microsoft Way 1 Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052 Redmond, WA 98052
USA USA
Email: pankajg@microsoft.com Email: pankajg@microsoft.com
Chris Wright Chris Wright
Red Hat Inc. Red Hat Inc.
1801 Varsity Drive 1801 Varsity Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606 Raleigh, NC 27606
USA USA
Email: chrisw@redhat.com Email: chrisw@redhat.com
Puneet Agarwal
Innovium, Inc.
6001 America Center Drive
San Jose, CA 95002
USA
Email: puneet@innovium.com
Kenneth Duda Kenneth Duda
Arista Networks Arista Networks
5453 Great America Parkway 5453 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 95054 Santa Clara, CA 95054
USA USA
Email: kduda@arista.com Email: kduda@arista.com
Dinesh G. Dutt Dinesh G. Dutt
Cumulus Networks Independent
140C S. Whisman Road
Mountain View, CA 94041
USA
Email: ddutt@cumulusnetworks.com Email: didutt@gmail.com
Jon Hudson Jon Hudson
Independent Independent
Email: jon.hudson@gmail.com Email: jon.hudson@gmail.com
Ariel Hendel Ariel Hendel
Facebook, Inc. Facebook, Inc.
1 Hacker Way 1 Hacker Way
Menlo Park, CA 94025 Menlo Park, CA 94025
USA USA
Email: ahendel@fb.com Email: ahendel@fb.com
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Martin Casado, Bruce Davie and Dave Thaler The authors wish to thank Martin Casado, Bruce Davie and Dave Thaler
for their input, feedback, and helpful suggestions. for their input, feedback, and helpful suggestions.
The authors would like to thank Magnus Nystrom for his reviews and The authors would like to thank Magnus Nystrom for his reviews and
feedback during the SECDIR early review. feedback.
Thanks to Daniel Migault, Anoop Ghanwani, Greg Mirksy, and Tal Thanks to Daniel Migault, Anoop Ghanwani, Greg Mirksy, Puneet
Mizrahi for their reviews, comments and feedback during the Working Agarwal, and Tal Mizrahi for their reviews, comments and feedback.
Group Last Call process.
The authors would like to thank David Black for his detailed reviews The authors would like to thank David Black for his detailed reviews
and valuable inputs during the TSVART early review. and valuable inputs.
Thanks to Sami Boutros for his inputs and helpful feedback. Thanks to Sami Boutros for his inputs and helpful feedback.
The authors would like to thank Matthew Bocci, Sam Aldrin, Benson The authors would like to thank Matthew Bocci, Sam Aldrin, Benson
Schliesser, Martin Vigoureux, and Alia Atlas for their guidance Schliesser, Martin Vigoureux, and Alia Atlas for their guidance
throughout the process. throughout the process.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
 End of changes. 13 change blocks. 
24 lines changed or deleted 16 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/