Hi Behcet, The idea is to allow VXLAN GPE to either encapsulate IPv4/v6/Ethernet/futureThings directly, or insert an NSH header between VXLAN GPE and those. To do this, VXLAN GPE indicates NSH, then NSH indicates what the next protocol is (e.g. IPv4/v6/Ethernet/futureThings).
- Larry On 4/29/15 9:01 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <[email protected]> wrote: >On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> >wrote: >> Hi Benson, >> >> Joe Touch wrote this on intarea list: >> >> There is no reason for having the GUE header differentiate between >> payload=IPv4 and payload=IPv6. The IP version is addressed by the >> version field of the IP header. If GUE encapsulates both type of IP the >> same way (and it should), it should NOT differentiate between them in >> its (GUE) header. >> >> >> I think the same applies to gpe header. >> >> Plus the issues on the "NSH" protocol. > >Curiously if you look at the nsh draft, Section 3.2, > >NSH Base Header > >also has a next protocol field with the same encoding. > >Anybody understands what is going on? > >Behcet >> >> Regards, >> >> Behcet >> >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Benson Schliesser >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi, Behcet. >>> >>> Behcet Sarikaya wrote: >>>> >>>> I was wondering what is NSH in this draft? It is referenced as an >>>> unnamed unknown draft from 2014? >>> >>> >>> I believe that NSH refers to the protocol described by >>>draft-ietf-sfc-nsh. >>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-nsh/) >>> >>> Thank you for reviewing the draft and noticing that the reference was >>> outdated. I anticipate that the co-authors will update the text >>>accordingly >>> in a future revision. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> -Benson _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
