On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Paul Quinn (paulq) <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Apr 29, 2015, at 12:01 PM, 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? > > Yes, the concept is that you don't know what you want to carry via GPE. > Today it might be v4, v6, ethernet, NSH or something else. Tomorrow, who > knows? But more importantly, we need to enable that stacking to occur. >
Please convince not me but Joe Touch on v4 and v6 thing. > The format of NSH is orthogonal -- as is the format of Ethernet for that > matter. From an outer header (i.e. VXLAN-GPE or other) you need to be able > to identify the inner protocol. > Are we talking about VM-to-VM communication? I think that is what VXLAN was designed for. Regards, Behcet > Paul > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
