IETF98 NVO3 WG agenda Overall format of NVO3 WG meeting will continue with roundtable discussions experiment started in Seoul. Session 1 will have WG status update and discussion of a few drafts, then the audience is asked to pick a roundtable of their choice and participate in the focused discussions there. Session 2 will focus on providing the results of roundtable discussions to the rest of the working group. Session 1 (1.5 hours) TUESDAY, March 28, 2017 1450-1620 Afternoon Session II Vevey 1/2 RTG nvo3 Network Virtualization Overlays WG 1. Administrativia. 5 min. WG Chairs. Matthew Bocci: Meeting starting. Note well applies. Sam is not at Chicago meeting. 2. WG status update. 5 min. WG Chairs. Matthew giving overview of WG status. There was a virtual interim meeting held earlier, focused entirely on the encapsulation document. One new RFC since last meeting. Tom Herbert: We have a DT draft that needs to get an adoption. It seems that we are assuming that Geneve is an answer. Will there be a separate adoption call for the design team draft? Matthew: The direction of the design team is in the Geneve direction, and Geneve is already a WG document. 3. Data Plane Design Team and draft-geneve update. 10 min. Sami Boutros draft-dt-nvo3-encap-01 Sami Boutros presenting on Encapsulation DT recommendations. Greg Mirsky: Let’s overcome the term “Inband OAM”. Inband OAM is packet sharing the same path as data packet. Inband OAM is what is being proposed as hybrid type 1 where we mix some telemetry and probe information with the flow. Underlay can send the OAM packet in a different way compared to the original packet. In the inband OAM there is congruency of OAM and data packets. Sami Boutros: You have mentioned that previously, we are aware and the slides do not reflect the terminology yet. Greg: We would like to address this during the roundtable. draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-04 Ilango Ganga presenting on Geneve. Tom Herbert: I think this was in response to the comments on sequential processing of TLVs. I am also worried on the denial of service. On paper this seems to be working, wonder how well this could work in reality. Suppose you have two implementations that cannot agree on the order of the options, therefore we do not have interoperability. We need a better example of how ordering of TLVs works. Or use natural ordering of the TLVs, for hardware builders specifying the ordering of the TLVs seems to be of value. Ilango: It is hard to specify all options in advance as they will be evolving, new ones may appear in future and you need to accommodate those. Tom Herbert: Order of processing is not the same as order in the packet. If I have a security option, I know that I need to process it first. Pat Thaler: Even if you have a strict order, you still need to parse the TLVs to find the length. There may be TLVs that are of interest for the transit nodes, others will be of interest to the end nodes, and that requires different processing. If you put a new one that is of interest to the transit nodes you may want to put it in the beginning of the list as that it is easier to process for the transit node. You need to look at the ordering on how you use them. David Mozes: I agree with that statement. 4. VXLAN extensions for signaling between CP and UP of vBRAS, 5 min. Lu Huang draft-huang-nvo3-vxlan-extension-for-vbras-00 Lu Huang presenting. Tom Herbert: If you go back through NVO3 archives you will see multiple instances of extending VXLAN in various ways. And the conclusion every time was that it is not good for backwards compatibility. You might better go with GPE or NSH metadata. Matthew Bocci: It might be good to discuss with SFC WG to see whether using NSH based approach would be a better option. Matthew: Show of hands who has read the draft? Less than 10 people. 5. Overlay OAM, 5 min. Greg Mirsky draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv Matthew: Skipping due to the lack of time. Will have an adoption call on the list for both of those drafts. 6. Moving to roundtables, topics, and expectations. 5 min. WG chairs and topic leaders. Matthew explaining logistics of the roundtables. 7. Roundtable discussions. 50 min. ===== Session 2 (1 hour) THURSDAY, March 30, 2017 1740-1840 Afternoon Session III Zurich E/F RTG nvo3 Network Virtualization Overlays WG Matthew Bocci: Meeting starting. Note well applies. 1. Administrativia. 5 min. WG Chairs. Matthew: Today we have reports for the roundtable sessions held on Tuesday. 2. Roundtable presentations. 45 min. Roundtable topic leaders. Data plane roundtable. Sami Boutros presenting on behalf of data plane group. Greg Mirsky: I have missed to ask for one more aspect on OAM - it is an alternative marking method. It can enable us passive performance measurement on a packet flow. It uses 1 or 2 bits in the header, we have a proposal in BIER WG, that document can explain how to do that, It would be good to have 2 bits in the NVO3 header. We can do the measurement of packet loss, delay, and jitter. The work is done in the IPPM WG, the base document is getting closer to the LC. There is one document that demonstrates how that can be done in the BIER overlay. Tal Mizrahi: That is a good point. If we can repurpose the O bit that would be good. Sami Boutros: Please send any references, we will consider in the next revision. Ilango Ganga: A common OAM bit - one of the reasons for the hardware that does not parse the options, it is helpful to have that indicator rather than putting it along the data. Greg Mirsky: Having OAM bit and the protocol field creates ambiguity. I am not saying that we need to remove the OAM bit, but let’s give an unambiguous definition what an OAM packet is. Ilango: We define a new protocol for OAM, define a new ethertype, and then bring it here. That protocol needs to have a provisioning for the next protocol field and that adds additional complexity. Greg: I have sacrificed my 10 minutes in the first meeting for the sake of community. The slides in the materials have exactly same details there. David Mozes: Your answer is the problem. If you add an ethertype this is solved. Greg: Let’s use the clear terminology first. Data path has its own protocol id. If we are using hybrid OAM. Dave Mozes: This is a problem because we cannot skip options with the length. Greg: OAM header has length that has a length of OAM message. David: What is the length of the packet then? Greg: That will be described by the NVO3 packet header. Erik Nordmark: If you look at the different formats, OAM may be a pure OAM packet that has an OAM protocol type, instead of payload being IP it is OAM. Another option that packet may not have any special payload but just the OAM bit set. It has attached the OAM information that is flowing through the network. What design team discussed was on potentially using extensions for carrying that indication. The other option is putting regular OAM payload that is followed by the regular payload. Greg: The bits that I mentioned - they go on to the clear packet. David: The reason for choosing Geneve vs GUE was based on middlebox awareness. If you do not parse the option you skip. If we take a bit, it needs to be parsed. Greg: One of the things why it is proposed this way is that we have BIER that uses it this way, and we tried to create common OAM for multiple overlays. Bits in the header are used as a mark. That is the reason why we have OAM header. It creates associated channel. You have multiple OAM functions and you need the way to identify them. George Swallow: Comment for clarification - bits in the header are for a common use. That seems to be a simple mechanism to take this or that action. Pat Thaler: We should use the inbuilt mechanism and not use the extension header. Sami: We will discuss all of that as DT progresses. Erik: If you want to take a look into the payload, the way to skip past that is the same whether you use one or other mechanism. Sami: We should not create a difference here. Tal: Seems that there are two separate questions. Do you want to have OAM in a shim or separate header, and whether you need an OAM bit. Matthew Bocci: Is the plan to update the DT draft? Sami: Yes. We will update and bring to the list. Control plane roundtable. Benson presenting on behalf of control plane group. Alia Atlas: Please do review the IEEE VDP document. We asked IEEE to please extend this protocol, we need to review it otherwise it will be more difficult to ask in the future to extend protocols. Do we need it at all if we do not review it? Pat: We would like people to read the whole document, but if you have a limited time, the most of the feedback would be appreciated on whether we have included the right data in the extensions of the TLVs. That document is only a few pages. You can either email us our comments or send comment to the list. We also have a spreadsheet that we normally take comments on and use that to put comments into our comment tool. Pat: Chairs have the password to access that document. Alia: I am looking at the charter and we had put out of scope NVA-NVE because WG was not comfortable working on that at the time. While we are open for documents that describe how to use those protocols, I would be fascinated in any discussion on what we can do in that distributed control plane space. Alia: Maybe an applicability statement document would be needed. As an example, how do you apply EVPN and plug the rest. Mathew: Show of hands please in the interest of applicability draft? 4 hands. Erik Nordmark: There was an observation if the control plane had a mechanisms to specify which extensions to support. That would need to be added into EVPN or any other control plane. Benson: Good point. Security roundtable. Jon Hudson presenting on behalf of security group. Tal: IPsec AH has been deprecated. Ignas: That was a discussion topic at the roundtable. Jon: Tal, if you did not say that, how many people in the room would know that? Matthew: Any other comments on this roundtable outcome? We have an expired draft on security considerations. That needs to be resurrected and take the requirements from there and translate to the solutions. 3. WG plans. 10 min. WG Chairs. Matthew: Next steps in the WG. We will do the adoption call on the DT data plane draft. Today we would like to do a consensus call on the outcome of the DT. We will also do a consensus call on the list. Greg: I just recently realized from the mailing list that GUE is also progressing. What I am asking - is there a way that teams the work in NVO3 and INT-AREA to collaborate that the decisions made are consistent? I am talking about entropy, alternative marking and other things that benefit everybody. Alia: The point of having a single dataplane encapsulation is that everything else builds on top of it. There are interest for other purposes to use GUE. I would be happy to see less encapsulations but the focus is that the work done on NVO3 is a recommendation that Geneve is the recommendation and we plan to focus on Geneve going forward. Tal: For clarification - do we still plan to target GPE as an informational? Matthew: Once we are finished with the standards track document we will look at that. Alia: Assuming that the authors are interested, it can be an informational document. Tal: This is a WG document and authors are less relevant. Alia: The question is whether there are people who want to do work. It will not be published as informational before the standards one is published as an RFC. Benson: I do not have a strong opinion on which protocol to pick. One of the criteria can be implementations. There are implementations of all of them, would be good to gather the feedback. Matthew: We had questions raised like that before, authors came and said that there are implementations. Implementation reports would help. We really need to pick one, as long as there are interoperable implementations, and at this stage it would be difficult to make a choice only on the implementation status. If it went to internet standard we would need more implementation experience. Matthew: Can we have a show of hands if you agree with DT conclusion to move on with Geneve? 15 hands. Matthew: Disagree? No hands. Matthew: Can we have a show of hands if you do not care and want to go to Bits and Bytes? :-) Matthew: We will raise the consensus call on the list. Matthew: We have a milestone for August this year for completion of this. One item is missing for OAM work progression. We will do an adoption call for two OAM drafts. Matthew: We will likely forma an informal design team on control plane applicability draft to make rapid progress. Matthew: Meeting ended.