Dino, So you are asking for a simple keep alive among NVEs (i.e. simpler than TCP) for NVEs to be aware if the target egress NVEs are not reachable.
That might be good to have, depending on the environment. With this so called "control protocol", the packets will be dropped at the Ingress NVE when egress NVE is not reachable. Without this so called "control protocol, the packets will be dropped somewhere in the network when the egress NVE is not reachable. In data center environment where most communications are among applications, most likely a source will not send more packets without acknowledgment from the destination. Then the impact of where the packet is dropped is not that big. But in an environment where NVEs have aggregated traffic from many sources/flows, then it is important to have this "control protocol". In this environment, it might even warrant a control plane for NVE to notify the source when the egress is not reachable, so the source can choose a different ingress NVE. Bottom-line: I truly think that NVO3 needs a better boundary on the problem domain. If NVO3 is targeted for solving problems for entire worldwide internet, you need many control plane protocols. If NVO3 is targeted for solving problems in data centers, then many control plane protocols becomes unnecessary. Linda > -----Original Message----- > > > > You don't need control plane protocol to achieve what you are asking > here. A simple TCP session among NVEs can do the job. When a NVE can't > reach the egress NVE to which the target is attached, drop the packet. > > That is a form of a control-plane protocol. And you will have to same > scaling challenges with TCP and arguably it is worse, since TCP, > inherently, does not have keepalives. > > Dino > > > > > > > Linda > > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
