Subject: Re: [sfc] NSH and UDP Transport

From: "Surendra Kumar (smkumar)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 01:58:10 +0000

Dear Chairs,

We submitted the draft on UDP transport for NSH (below)
Although we strongly believe it belongs in SFC, we would be happy to
present it in RTGWG or NVO3 as suggested by Jeff and Benson.

Also, appreciate your consideration in getting a slot for this at Prague.

Thanks,
Surendra.

-------
A new version of I-D, draft-kumar-sfc-nsh-udp-transport-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Surendra Kumar and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:		draft-kumar-sfc-nsh-udp-transport
Revision:	00
Title:		UDP Overlay Transport For Network Service Header
Document date:	2015-05-16
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		9
URL:            
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kumar-sfc-nsh-udp-transport-00.t
xt
Status:         
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kumar-sfc-nsh-udp-transport/
Htmlized:       
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumar-sfc-nsh-udp-transport-00

Abstract:
   This draft describes the transport encapsulation to carry Network
   Service Header (NSH) over UDP protocol.  This enables applications
   and services using NSH to communicate over a simple layer-3 network
   without topological constraints.  It brings down the barrier to
   implement overlay transports by not requiring additional overhead as
   is typical of overlay mechanisms designed on top of UDP.

   As a first benefit, this method eases the deployment of Service
   Function Chaining (SFC) by allowing SFC components to utilize the
   basic UDP/IP stack available in virtually all network elements and
   end systems to setup the overlays and realize SFCs.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat
------

On 4/28/15, 10:47 AM, "Surendra Kumar (smkumar)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Thanks Benson, Larry!
>
>I will produce a draft for both the UDP port# and the ether-type and
>publish it within SFC WG based on the comments so far.
>The chairs can move it to the appropriate WG if they think otherwise.
>
>Surendra.
>
>On 4/28/15, 12:14 AM, "Benson Schliesser" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>Hi, Larry and Jim -
>>
>>Larry Kreeger (kreeger) wrote:
>>> If someone wanted to write a draft specifying how to carry NSH over
>>> UDP, what WG would it be submitted to?
>>
>>As you probably know, NVO3 WG has adopted VXLAN-GPE which is an example
>>of a NSH-capable transport. I think this is a good example of what Jim
>>described as a "relevant WG for a given transport".
>>
>>But in the case of NSH carried directly in UDP, it seems to me that (as
>>Larry described) this is normally described in the protocol document
>>itself. Since NSH is intentionally flexible with regards to underlying
>>transport, I can imagine this being a companion document rather than
>>embedded in the NSH text. But in either case I think it makes the most
>>sense for the SFC WG to be the home for such a definition.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>-Benson
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>sfc mailing list
>>[email-masked]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>
>_______________________________________________
>sfc mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc