> -----Original Message----- > From: Lucy yong > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 11:44 PM > To: Xuxiaohu; 'Erik Nordmark'; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Re: [nvo3] Encapsulation considerations > > This is related to my early comment. The draft needs point out transport > related > encapsulation and transport independent encapsulation. The considerations for > two types of encapsulations have difference. > > To be able to support individual transport independent encapsulations, > underlay > transport needs a mechanism to distinguish carried payload. IMO: this is > beyond > the scope of the draft.
Logically speaking, the MPLS payload indication issue should not be addressed by the payload itself and therefore should be outside of the scope of this draft. However, due to the lack of an explicit protocol identifier field in the current MPLS architecture, this issue has to be addressed by the payload itself. Best regards, Xiaohu > Lucy > > -----Original Message----- > From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Xuxiaohu > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 9:15 PM > To: 'Erik Nordmark'; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Encapsulation considerations > > Hi Erik, > > As it has said in the draft : "... We later expanded the scope somewhat to > consider how the encapsulations would play with MPLS "transport", which is > important because SFC and BIER seem to target being dependent of the > underlying "transport"...", it would be necessary to consider the first nibble > issue for those encapsulations which may be transported over MPLS. More > specifically, for those encapsulations which may be directly encapsulated > further > with an MPLS header, they must not start with the value 4 (IPv4) or the value > 6 > (IPv6) in the first nibble. Otherwise, they would be mistakenly interpreted > as IP > payloads by transit LSRs and therefore be subjected to ECMP and potential > packet misordering. > > Best regards, > Xiaohu > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: 2015年3月26日 5:01 > > To: [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] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
