SPRING D. Dukes, Ed.
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils
Intended status: Informational P. Camarillo
Expires: January 9, 2020 Cisco Systems, Inc.
July 8, 2019
Comparative Analysis of MTU overhead in the context of SPRING
draft-dukes-spring-mtu-overhead-analysis-02
Abstract
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 January 9, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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 January 9, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CAMTUSPRING July 2019
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
SID.
o SRv6: 40 bytes : IPv6(40)
Dukes, et al. Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CAMTUSPRING July 2019
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
[I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming]
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-07 (work in progress), February 2019.
[]
Filsfils, C., Dukes, D., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment
Routing Header (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-
header-21 (work in progress), June 2019.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.
Authors' Addresses
Darren Dukes (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Ottawa
CA
Email: ddukes@cisco.com
Dukes, et al. Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CAMTUSPRING July 2019
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Brussels
BE
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Pablo Camarillo
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Spain
Email: pcamaril@cisco.com
Dukes, et al. Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 4]