Benson, This is a new model for bridging. It's easy to see how it can be made to work for unicast; less so for multicast.
Let me just say, I don't disagree with the need for Group ID to represent a VAP rather than the VNI. But my reason for why it's needed is different from yours. Anoop Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 22, 2015, at 2:16 PM, Benson Schliesser <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Yizhou. Thanks for your note. > > Liyizhou wrote: >> I think we need to figure out how external NVE perform the hairpin >> forwarding in this case before deciding if any other extension is >> required. Personally I prefer not to enable hairpin forwarding in any >> indirect connection case. Otherwise we still need some intelligence on >> intermediate classic bridge B1. > > Is this true if we use a distinct Q tag for each VM? I.e. if we use the tag > to identify a VAP, and do *not* think of this as Q-tag = VN, then we should > be able to switch through intermediate devices and "hairpin" forward on the > nNVE when appropriate. Is this correct and/or am I missing something? > > Cheers, > -Benson _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
