> With this so called "control protocol", the packets will be dropped at the > Ingress NVE when egress NVE is not reachable.
Only if *all* the NVEs for the EID? (what do you guys call the things behind the NVE) are unreachable. > Without this so called "control protocol, the packets will be dropped > somewhere in the network when the egress NVE is not reachable. Right. > 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. You have to make this work for UDP applications. > 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. No comment. ;-) But that works naturally in MPTCP by the way. > 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. Dino _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
