Network Virtualization Overlays NVO 3 Working Group IETF

Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO 3) Working Group IETF 97, November 2016, Seoul Chairs: Sam Aldrin <aldrin. ietf@gmail. com> Matthew Bocci <matthew. bocci@nokia. com> Secretary: Ignas Bagdonas <ibagdona. ietf@gmail. com>

Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity is considered an "IETF Contribution". Such statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to: • The IETF plenary session • The IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG • Any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF auspices • Any IETF working group or portion thereof • Any Birds of a Feather (BOF) session • The IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB • The RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function All IETF Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC 5378 and RFC 3979 (updated by RFC 4879). Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or function, are not IETF Contributions in the context of this notice. Please consult RFC 5378 and RFC 3979 for details. A participant in any IETF activity is deemed to accept all IETF rules of process, as documented in Best Current Practices RFCs and IESG Statements. A participant in any IETF activity acknowledges that written, audio and video records of meetings may be made and may be available to the public. 2

Administrivia • Blue Sheets! • Note takers + Jabber Scribe? • Jabber / XMPP xmpp: nvo 3@jabber. ietf. org? join • Mailing List: General Discussion: nvo 3@ietf. org To Subscribe: https: //www. ietf. org/mailman/listinfo/nvo 3 Archive: http: //www. ietf. org/mail-archive/web/nvo 3/index. html

Meeting Logistics • First 40 mins will run like a “normal” IETF meeting • Final 50 mins will be roundtable session on some topics of importance to the working group • We are not yet sure how to best run this session. This is an experiment. • We have a second session on Thursday that we will use to report back on these sessions 4

Agenda – Wednesday 16 th Nov 1. Welcome, Agenda Bashing, Status Update WG Chairs (15 min) 2. Update on VDP extensions for NVO 3 – Pat Thaler (5 mins) 3. VXLAN YANG Data Model https: //datatracker. ietf. org/doc/draft-chen-nvo 3 -vxlan-yang/ Fangwei Hu (10 min) 4. BFD for VXLAN https: //datatracker. ietf. org/doc/draft-spallagatti-bfd-vxlan/ Greg Mirsky (10 min) 5. Round table discussions (50 min) 5

Agenda – Thursday 17 th Nov 1. OAM Header for use in Overlay Networks https: //datatracker. ietf. org/doc/draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header/ Greg Mirsky (10 min) 2. On-demand Continuity Check (CC) and Connectivity Verification (CV) for Overlay Networks https: //datatracker. ietf. org/doc/draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv/ Greg Mirsky (10 min) 3. Report back on round table discussions WG Chairs (70 min) 6

WG Progress: Milestones Done - Problem Statement submitted for IESG review Done - Framework document submitted for IESG review Publication requested - Architecture submitted for IESG review Nov 2016 - Use Cases submitted for IESG review Aug 2017 - Data Plane Solution submitted for IESG review Sept 2017 - Data Plane Requirements submitted for IESG review Dec 2017 - Control Plane Requirements submitted for IESG review Dec 2017 - Operational Requirements submitted for IESG review Oct 2015 - Security Requirements submitted for IESG review Dec 2015 - NVE - NVA Control Plane Solution submitted for IESG review Dec 2015 - End Device - NVE Control Plane Solution submitted for IESG review Dec 2017 – OAM Solution submitted to IESG Review Dec 2017 - Recharter or close working group 7

Virtual interim Meeting – 26 th October 2016 • Virtual interim discussed next steps in data plane design • WG has adopted 3 data plane encapsulation drafts: – draft-ietf-nvo 3 -geneve-03 – draft-ietf-nvo 3 -gue-04 – draft-ietf-nvo 3 -vxlan-gpe-02 • Very little technical progress made on these since adoption • Design team to take one of the three existing encapsulations and enhance it to address these concerns. – Output is standard track draft for adoption by working group – Existing three drafts could be forwarded to the IESG as informational after publication of NVO 3 next-generation encapsulation – The single encapsulation should be viewed as one that the WG and industry can converge around for the future. • Charter posted to the list 8

Encapsulation Design Team Charter NVO 3 Encapsulation Design team 2016 Problem Statement The NVO 3 WG charter states that it may produce requirements for network virtualization data planes based on encapsulation of virtual network traffic over an IPbased underlay data plane. Such requirements should consider OAM and security. Based on these requirements the WG will select, extend, and/or develop one or more data plane encapsulation format(s). This has led to drafts describing three encapsulations being adopted by the working group: - draft-ietf-nvo 3 -geneve-03 - draft-ietf-nvo 3 -gue-04 - draft-ietf-nvo 3 -vxlan-gpe-02 Discussion on the list and in face-to-face meetings has identified a number of technical problems with each of these encapsulations. Furthermore, there was clear consensus at the IETF meeting in Berlin that it is undesirable for the working group to progress more than one data plane encapsulation. Although consensus could not be reached on the list, the overall consensus was for a single encapsulation (RFC 2418, Section 3. 3). Nonetheless there has been resistance to converging on a single encapsulation format. Design Team Goals The design team should take one of the proposed encapsulations and enhance it to address the technical concerns. Backwards compatibility with the chosen encapsulation and the simple evolution of deployed networks as well as applicability to all locations in the NVO 3 architecture are goals. The DT should specifically avoid a design that is burdensome on hardware implementations, but should allow future extensibility. The chosen design should also operate well with ICMP and in ECMP environments. If further extensibility is required, then it should be done in such a manner that it does not require the consent of an entity outside of the IETF. Timeline The design team should produce a first draft describing the proposal by end of January 2017. Target adoption by the WG by March 2017 IETF. 9

Document Status - 1 • RFCs –RFC 7364: Problem Statement: Overlays for Network Virtualization –RFC 7365: Framework for Data Center (DC) Network Virtualization –No new RFCs since last IETF • RFC Editors Queue –draft-ietf-nvo 3 -arch-05

Document Status - 2 Requirements: –draft-ietf-nvo 3 -dataplane-requirements • Completed WG Last Call –draft-ietf-nvo 3 -nve-nva-cp-req-04 –draft-ietf-nvo 3 -hpvr 2 nve-cp-req-02 • Liasion to IEEE, pending update to VDP –draft-ietf-nvo 3 -security-requirements-07 • Completed WGLC with inadequate feedback • Text should be used to define security considerations in solutions drafts We plan to progress requirements in parallel with applicable solutions

Document Status - 3 Multicast Framework: - draft-ietf-nvo 3 -mcast-fwk-05 - Passed WG last call. - Awaiting shepherd’s write up Use Cases: –draft-ietf-nvo 3 -use-case-12 –Passed WG last call –Awaiting shepherd’s write up

Document Status - 3 • Three WG documents on data plane encap solutions – draft-ietf-nvo 3 -vxlan-gpe-02 – draft-ietf-nvo 3 -geneve-03 – draft-ietf-nvo 3 -gue-05 • Adopted in Int. Area WG: draft-ietf-nvo 3 -gue-05 These will be parked while the encapsulation design team completes its work

Roundtable Topics and Chairs 1. OAM – What is really important for encapsulation design team? Specific requirements on encapsulation and control plane. What OAM visibility is required E 2 E in NVO 3 architecture • Greg Mirsky 2. Control Plane – What standardisation work do we need for NVE-NVA control plane and management plane? What are the protocol options? What is needed from YANG models vs. dynamic control protocols ? • Benson Schliesser 3. Data Plane – Extension options for NVO 3 encapsulation. What is really needed? • Pat Thaler 14