Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 Networks
draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-08-19
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-08-05
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-08-04
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2014-08-04
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from AUTH |
2014-07-28
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT |
2014-06-19
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2014-06-18
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2014-06-18
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2014-06-17
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2014-06-16
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2014-06-16
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-06-16
|
09 | Nevil Brownlee | ISE state changed to Sent to the RFC Editor from In IESG Review |
2014-06-16
|
09 | Nevil Brownlee | Sent request for publication to the RFC Editor |
2014-05-28
|
09 | Pearl Liang | (Recording this comment in the tracker) ISE/IESG/Authors: IANA has reviewed draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-09. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond … (Recording this comment in the tracker) ISE/IESG/Authors: IANA has reviewed draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-09. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions: IANA has questions about the action requested in the IANA Considerations (IC) section of this document. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document which has been moved to ISE stream, there is one action which IANA must complete. IANA is requested to cite this document as the reference for the assigned UDP port 'vxlan' in the port number and service name registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers Questions: 1) The IC section does not clearly say that the port should cite this draft document. Do authors intend to cite this draft in the registry? If so, please revise the text to reflect that. 2) IANA requests the following template (RFC 6335 section 8.1.1) should be recorded in the IC section of this draft document: Service Name (REQUIRED) Transport Protocol(s) (REQUIRED) Assignee (REQUIRED) Contact (REQUIRED) Description (REQUIRED) Reference (REQUIRED) Port Number (OPTIONAL) Service Code (REQUIRED for DCCP only) Known Unauthorized Uses (OPTIONAL) Assignment Notes (OPTIONAL) IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. |
2014-05-23
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2014-05-20
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Changed field(s): review_by_rfc_editor,abstract |
2014-05-20
|
09 | Nevil Brownlee | IETF conflict review initiated - see conflict-review-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan |
2014-05-20
|
09 | Nevil Brownlee | ISE state changed to In IESG Review from Finding Reviewers |
2014-04-15
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | This document is now with the ISE and the data tracker has a separate line for tracking ISE State |
2014-04-15
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to AD is watching from Publication Requested |
2014-04-14
|
09 | Nevil Brownlee | ISE state changed to Finding Reviewers |
2014-04-11
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Publication now requested on Independent Stream |
2014-04-11
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup |
2014-04-11
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Moved to Independent Stream after long discussions including the authors and ADs. But the document has had the benefit of IETF last call and some … Moved to Independent Stream after long discussions including the authors and ADs. But the document has had the benefit of IETF last call and some Directorate reviews. |
2014-04-11
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Stream changed to ISE from IETF |
2014-04-11
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Intended Status changed to Informational from Experimental |
2014-04-10
|
09 | T. Sridhar | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2014-04-10
|
09 | T. Sridhar | New version available: draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-09.txt |
2014-04-07
|
08 | Robert Sparks | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. |
2014-03-27
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Pending discussions with authors et al. about the right way to progress this document. |
2014-03-27
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup from Waiting for Writeup |
2014-03-24
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2014-03-07
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Shepherding AD changed to Adrian Farrel |
2014-02-08
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Thomas Nadeau |
2014-02-08
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Thomas Nadeau |
2014-02-07
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2014-02-07
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2014-02-07
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2014-02-07
|
08 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors: IANA has reviewed draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-08. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as … IESG/Authors: IANA has reviewed draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-08. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions: IANA has a question about the action requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is one action which IANA must complete. IANA is requested to cite this document as the reference for the assigned UDP port 'vxlan' in the port number and service name registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers QUESTION: Should the IESG be listed as the Assignee and remove Lawrence Kreeger from the assigned UDP port? According to RFC6335, Assignee and Contact for assignments done through IETF document stream will be: IESG IETF Chair IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
2014-02-06
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Lt. Mundy |
2014-02-06
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Lt. Mundy |
2014-02-03
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2014-02-03
|
08 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (VXLAN: A Framework for Overlaying Virtualized … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (VXLAN: A Framework for Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 Networks) to Experimental RFC The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'VXLAN: A Framework for Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 Networks' as Experimental RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-03-24. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN), which is used to address the need for overlay networks within virtualized data centers accommodating multiple tenants. The scheme and the related protocols can be used in cloud service provider and enterprise data center networks. This memo documents the deployed VXLAN protocol for the benefit of the IETF community. The IETF consensus on this RFC represents consensus to publish this memo, and not consensus on the text itself. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2014-02-03
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2014-02-03
|
08 | Stewart Bryant | Last call was requested |
2014-02-03
|
08 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-02-03
|
08 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot writeup was generated |
2014-02-03
|
08 | Stewart Bryant | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2014-02-03
|
08 | Stewart Bryant | Last call announcement was changed |
2014-02-03
|
08 | Stewart Bryant | Last call announcement was generated |
2014-02-03
|
08 | T. Sridhar | New version available: draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-08.txt |
2014-01-30
|
07 | Stewart Bryant | Ready to go to IETF LC - IPR poll completed - waiting to hear if the authors wish to include text on MTU |
2014-01-23
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-01-23
|
07 | T. Sridhar | New version available: draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-07.txt |
2014-01-15
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested |
2013-11-26
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-06.txt Document Shepherd Write-Up (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-06.txt Document Shepherd Write-Up (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Experimental. The document describes a layer 2 over layer 3 encapsulation technology (VXLAN) for addressing the requirements of virtualised data centres with multi-tenancy. VXLAN has already been widely implemented but deployment is ongoing. As a solution it does not fit within the existing IETF WG charters, but an early documentation of it is needed for the information of the community, particularly that part developing Internet Standards for multi-tenant data centres (e.g. the NVO3 WG). This community needs to refer to VXLAN when developing gap analyses of solutions vs. NVO3 requirements. As such, publishing this draft now as experimental would greatly assist the community in assessing the suitability of this technology. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document describes Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN), which is used to address the need for overlay networks within virtualized data centers accommodating multiple tenants. The scheme and the related protocols can be used in cloud service provider and enterprise data center networks. Working Group Summary This draft is not the product of an IETF working group. However, the protocol that it describes is intended to address the problem statement and requirements developed by the NVO3 working group. This working group is not currently chartered to develop solutions, but is chartered to investigate whether existing solutions meet its requirements. In order to do this, the working group felt that VXLAN, as documented in this draft, should be published in its current form to enable the NVO3 gap analysis to address it. However, there was not consensus to publish the draft as an NVO3 working group document. Therefore the WG accepted the proposal for the draft to be published through AD sponsorship. Document Quality This document describes the current state of a protocol for which multiple implementations have been indicated. The document is well written and appears to document the protocol adequately so that other members of the wider community could implement it. Furthermore, the quality of the documentation appears to be adequate to use as an informational reference from other standards track documents developed by the IETF. I therefore have no concerns about the quality of the document. The document does not specify any MIB changes or additions which would need review. Personnel The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci. The responsible Area Director is Stewart Bryant. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document has been reviewed by the document shepherd and some minor comments addressed. The document is now ready for forwarding to the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. The document has received adequate review, with the reservation that given it is not a WG document, it has not gone through WG last call. The document shepherds review was sent to the NVO3 and L2VPN WG lists, and comments requested. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes. The authors have all indicated that they are not aware of any IPR. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. None filed. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? This is not a WG document. However, the NVO3 WG is aware of the document and the fact that it will be progressed as an individual submission. The document is referred to by NVO3 WG drafts. There is consensus for this publication path. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) None indicated. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. There are no ID Nits issues. Note that the draft has 8 co-authors listed at the top. This exceeds the current RFC editor guidelines. This situation has been discussed with the authors of the draft, and I believe that in this case the list of authors at the top of the draft does realistically reflect the individuals who made a substantial contribution to the draft. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. There are no formal review criteria. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? There are no normative references. (15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. There are no normative references. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. There are no changes proposed to the status of existing RFCs. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). IANA has allocated UDP port 4789 from the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry for use by VXLAN. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. There are no requests for new IANA registries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. There are no sections of the document that use formal languages. |
2013-11-26
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Document shepherd changed to Matthew Bocci |
2013-11-26
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Assigned to Routing Area |
2013-11-26
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Intended Status changed to Experimental |
2013-11-26
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-11-26
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Stream changed to IETF from None |
2013-11-06
|
06 | T. Sridhar | New version available: draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-06.txt |
2013-10-17
|
05 | T. Sridhar | New version available: draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-05.txt |
2013-10-16
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | Shepherding AD changed to Stewart Bryant |
2013-05-08
|
04 | T. Sridhar | New version available: draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-04.txt |
2013-02-22
|
03 | T. Sridhar | New version available: draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-03.txt |
2012-08-22
|
02 | T. Sridhar | New version available: draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-02.txt |
2012-02-24
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-01.txt |
2011-08-27
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-00.txt |