VXLAN and OTV: I’ve been suckered
When VXLAN came out a year ago, a lot of us looked at the packet format and wondered why Cisco and VMware decided to use UDP instead of more commonly used GRE. One explanation was evident: UDP port numbers give you more entropy that you can use in 5-tuple-based load balancing. The other explanation looked even more promising: VXLAN and OTV use very similar packet format, so the hardware already doing OTV encapsulation (Nexus 7000) could be used to do VXLAN termination. Boy have we been suckered.
Update 2015-07-12: NX-OS 7.2.0 supports OTV encapsulation with VXLAN-like headers on F3 linecards. See OTV UDP Encapsulation for more details (HT: Nik Geyer).
It turns out nobody took the time to analyze an OTV packet trace with the Wireshark; everyone believed whatever IETF drafts were telling us. Here’s the packet format from draft-hasmit-otv-03:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Time to Live | Protocol = 17 | Header Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source-site OTV Edge Device IP Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination-site OTV Edge Device (or multicast) Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = 8472 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UDP length | UDP Checksum = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R|R|R|R|I|R|R|R| Overlay ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance ID | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Frame in Ethernet or 802.1Q Format |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
And here’s the packet format from draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan. Apart from a different UDP port number, the two match perfectly.
Outer IP Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Time to Live | Protocol | Header Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Outer Source Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Outer Destination Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Outer UDP Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = VXLAN Port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UDP Length | UDP Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
VXLAN Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R|R|R|R|I|R|R|R| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Inner Ethernet Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Inner Destination MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Inner Destination MAC Address | Inner Source MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Inner Source MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Ethertype = C-Tag | Inner.VLAN Tag Information |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Payload:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ethertype of Original Payload | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Original Ethernet Payload |
| |
| (Note that the original Ethernet Frame's FCS is not included) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
However, it turns out the OTV draft four Cisco’s engineers published in 2011 has nothing to do with the actual implementation and encapsulation format used by Nexus 7000. It seems Brian McGahan was the first one to actually do the OTV packet capture and analysis and published his findings. He discovered that OTV is nothing else than the very familiar EoMPLSoGREoIP. No wonder the first VXLAN gateway device Cisco announced at Cisco Live is not the Nexus 7000 but a Nexus 1000V-based solution (at least that’s the way I understood this whitepaper).
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps9402/qa_c67-574969.html
http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Nexus_7000_-_OTV_-_Design_and_Configuration_Example
Frankly, nothing new. ;)
I think that's the reason that some may feel suckered, as do I. I give them the benefit of the doubt until the next round of modules come out and we see what's supported.
So, you know, the path forward is not always as straightforward as we might like. :)
In this case, the OTV header format proposed in draft-hasmit-otv-03 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hasmit-otv-03) is the original proposed OTV header and has clear benefits in terms of its ability to be handled by the transit network providing connectivity for an overlay. This header is the header we want to converge to for all overlay encapsulations moving forward, hence the bit-by-bit match observed with the VXLAN and LISP headers.
However, in order for Cisco to deliver OTV in a timely manner, we released an implementation on the Nexus 7000 that used an alternate encapsulation format that could be supported by existing switching hardware. The work has been taking place at Cisco (and across the industry) to support the proposed UDP encapsulation and Cisco's newer lines of ASICs will support the UDP encapsulation, but in the intervening 2+ years customers have an option for a hardware accelerated solution they can work with.
Since the goal of standards bodies is to achieve convergence and consensus, we elected to maintain a crisp forward-looking message and focus our IETF proposal on the UDP encapsulation. We feel the approach has paid off as the newer proposals such as VXLAN adopted the proposed header format.
The use of an alternate encapsulation for the initial release of OTV has been openly socialized by Cisco since OTV was first released (and well ahead of the publication of the IETF draft) in forums such as Cisco Live, public Webinars and in docs like http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps9402/qa_c67-574969.html .
Our goal was for clarity and certainly not to imply that ASIC lines that precede the invention of OTV could actually support the proposed new UDP encapsulation scheme.
Hope this helps helps.
Regards,
Omar Sultan (@omarsultan)
Cisco