idnits 2.17.1 draft-dukes-spring-mtu-overhead-analysis-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (September 14, 2018) is 2050 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming-05 == Outdated reference: A later version (-26) exists of draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-14 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6830 (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 SPRING D. Dukes, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft C. Filsfils 4 Intended status: Informational P. Camarillo 5 Expires: March 18, 2019 Cisco Systems, Inc. 6 September 14, 2018 8 Comparative Analysis of MTU overhead in the context of SPRING 9 draft-dukes-spring-mtu-overhead-analysis-01 11 Abstract 13 This document provides an apples-to-apples comparative analysis of 14 MTU overhead in the context of SPRING. 16 Status of This Memo 18 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 19 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 23 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 24 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 18, 2019. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 36 document authors. All rights reserved. 38 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 39 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 40 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 41 publication of this document. Please review these documents 42 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 43 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 44 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 45 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 46 described in the Simplified BSD License. 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 51 1.1. Stateless IPv6 Encapsulation Within a VPN Context . . . . 2 52 1.1.1. Analysis of MTU overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 1. Introduction 58 This document provides an apples-to-apples comparative analysis of 59 MTU overhead in the context of SPRING. 61 The first version of this document concentrates on stateless IPv6 62 encapsulation within a VPN context. 64 1.1. Stateless IPv6 Encapsulation Within a VPN Context 66 A VPN context provides routing and forwarding isolation at interface 67 granularity on a Provider Edge (PE) node. 69 Encapsulation between PE nodes is used to forward traffic between the 70 VPN contexts of remote nodes. Typically, this encapsulation encodes 71 the remote node address and VPN context. 73 Stateless encapsulation requires no additional state be propagated 74 between PE and provider (P) nodes. 76 1.1.1. Analysis of MTU overhead 78 VXLAN [RFC7348], LISP [RFC6830], GTP and SRv6 79 [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming] encapsulations are 80 considered as they provide stateless encapsulation while supporting 81 VPN contexts. 83 VXLAN, LISP, and GTP encapsulate all add VPN context via UDP. 85 o VXLAN: 56 bytes : IPv6(40) + UDP(8) + VXLAN(8) 87 o LISP: 56 bytes : IPv6(40) + UDP(8) + LISP(8) 89 o GTP: 56 bytes : IPv6(40) + UDP(8) + GTP(8) 91 SRv6 encapsulates and includes the VPN context with the destination 92 SID. 94 o SRv6: 40 bytes : IPv6(40) 95 The SRv6 VPN SID encodes location and VPN context so IPv6 96 encapsulation is all that's required for the SRv6 case, i.e. there is 97 no Segment Routing Extension Header (SRH) 98 [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] required. 100 SRv6 results in a lower overhead than VXLAN, LISP, and GTP for 101 stateless encapsulation within a VPN context. 103 2. Informative References 105 [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming] 106 Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., 107 daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6 108 Network Programming", draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network- 109 programming-05 (work in progress), July 2018. 111 [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] 112 Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and 113 d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header 114 (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-14 (work in 115 progress), June 2018. 117 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 118 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 119 DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, 120 . 122 [RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger, 123 L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual 124 eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for 125 Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 126 Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014, 127 . 129 Authors' Addresses 131 Darren Dukes (editor) 132 Cisco Systems, Inc. 133 Ottawa 134 CA 136 Email: ddukes@cisco.com 137 Clarence Filsfils 138 Cisco Systems, Inc. 139 Brussels 140 BE 142 Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com 144 Pablo Camarillo 145 Cisco Systems, Inc. 146 Spain 148 Email: pcamaril@cisco.com