Hi Carlos,
-----Original Message----- From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 2:51 PM To: Lucy yong Cc: Erik Nordmark; [email protected] Subject: Re: [nvo3] Encapsulation considerations Lucy, > On Mar 25, 2015, at 5:23 PM, Lucy yong > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Here is a suggestion to the draft. > > There are two distinct encapsulation purposes. > 1) an encapsulation for tunneling purpose, i.e. transport related > encapsulation, e.g. nvo3. > 2) an encapsulation for a service, i.e. transport independent encapsulation, > e.g. sfc. > I do not see this distinction. What you call tunneling vs. service is an artifact of where in the stack you are placing your reference point. If you go up to the overlay, the “service” becomes the “tunnel”. Or looking at it from the bottom, the “tunnel” is a “service”. [Lucy] Term "Service" makes confusion here. But at the overlay, the "service" is not the "tunnel". Maybe this is better way to distinguish the two. 1) an encapsulation for tunneling purpose, i.e. transport related encapsulation, e.g. nvo3. 2) an encapsulation for non-tunneling, i.e. transport independent encapsulation, e.g. sfc. I don't think that you can move the reference point to make nv03 encapsulation to non-tunneling encapsulation, and make sfc encapsulation into tunneling encapsulation. The architectures determine what they are. > > Considerations for two types of encapsulations have difference. It is good > for the draft to point out that and give separate considerations. > The considerations seem to apply to all encaps, instead of a grouping, a table might help (where for some encap, some consideration might be a noop). [Lucy] A table ends up with the pattern of two kinds. Thanks, Lucy Thanks, — Carlos. > Thanks, > Lucy > > > -----Original Message----- > From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Erik Nordmark > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 4:01 PM > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [nvo3] Encapsulation considerations > > > I presented part of this at the most recent NVO3 interim meeting.The full 12 > areas of considerations where presented at RTGWG earlier this week. > The draft is > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rtg-dt-encap/ > and the slides are at > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-rtgwg-8.pdf > > There is probably additional things in there to consider for NVO3, and advice > that can be reused to make it easier to move NVO3 forward. > > Regards, > Erik > > > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
