On 4/7/15 7:15 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
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.
Xiaohu,
Good point.
But I couldn't tell from the emails on the BIER list whether the constraints on
the first nibble value is a strict requirement in all cases, or whether it is
conditional on something (and if so, what is the condition).
Once I know that answer we can definitely add some text pointing out the issue.
Thanks,
Erik
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
