Subject: [nvo3] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 05:37:57 -0800

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-14: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 3.3.

This might be an easy DISCUSS to resolve. Since the specification requires the
Destination port to be configurable, it is not clear to me how the "transit"
devices will identify Geneve packets being sent to a non-default port (i.e. not
6081). Can you please clarify?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Ben's DISCUSS position and I would like to ensure that the concerns
brought up regarding transit devices and UDP zero checksums are resolved. I
would also like to ensure that RFC8200 is used as the reference for the IPv6
protocol as stated in Eric's DISCUSS.

* Section 3.3

Have you considered the use of the flow label instead of source port for  in
the IPv6 tunnel case? I highly recommend looking at [RFC6438] for further
details as it is specifically addresses ECMP for IP-in-IPv6 tunneled traffic.