Subject: [nvo3] routing area design team on dataplane encapsulation considerations

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 17:46:30 -0500

I have chartered a Routing Area Design Team to work on data-plane
encapsulation considerations.

I've bcc'd nvo3, sfc, bier, and rtgwg as the most directly relevant.
Please keep any conversation in one place on routing-discussion.

Erik Nordmark has kindly agreed to lead this design team.  The members of
the design
team are:

  Albert Tian <[email-masked]>
  Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
  Jesse Gross <[email-masked]>
  Jon Hudson <[email-masked]>
  Larry Kreeger (kreeger) <[email-masked]>
  Pankaj Garg <[email-masked]>
  Pat Thaler <[email-masked]>
  Tom Herbert <[email-masked]>

The mailing list, [email-masked], is closed but the
archives are
publicly available at:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dt-encap-considerations/current/maillist.html

The Design Team is chartered as follows:

There have been multiple efforts over the years that have resulted in new
or modified data plane behaviors involving encapsulations. That includes
IETF efforts like MPLS, LISP, and TRILL but also industry efforts like
Vxlan and NVGRE.  These collectively can be seen as a source of insight
into the properties that data planes need to meet.  The IETF is currently
working on potentially new encapsulations in NVO3 and SFC and considering
working on BIER. In addition there is work on tunneling in the INT area.

This is a short term design team chartered to collect and construct useful
advice to parties working on new or modified data plane behaviors that
include additional encapsulations.  The goal is for the group to document
useful advice gathered from interacting with ongoing efforts.  An Internet
Draft will be produced for IETF92 to capture that advice, which will be
discussed in RTGWG.

Data plane encapsulations face a set of common issues such as:

  * How to provide entropy for ECMP
  * Issues around packet size and fragmentation/reassembly
  * OAM - what support is needed in an encapsulation format?
  * Security and privacy.
  * QoS
  * Congestion Considerations
  * IPv6 header protection (non-zero UDP checksum over IPv6 issue)
  * Extensibility - e.g., for evolving OAM, security, and/or congestion
control
  * Layering of multiple encapsulations e.g., SFC over NVO3 over BIER

The design team will provide advice on those issues. The intention is that
even where we have different encapsulations for different purposes carrying
different data, each such encapsulation doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel
for the above common issues.

The design team will look across the routing area in particular at SFC,
NVO3 and BIER. It will not be involved in comparing or analyzing any
particular encapsulation formats proposed in those WGs and BoFs but instead
focus on common advice.

Regards,
Alia