On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Paul Quinn (paulq) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > >> On May 4, 2015, at 5:01 PM, Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi VXLAN-gpe authors, >> >> After reading many times and discussions with one of the 12 coauthors :) >> I think I now understand better this draft. >> >> The source of misunderstanding was the lack of problem statement. My >> suggestion is to clearly define what this draft is intended to solve. >> >> Due to the fact that VXLAN is mentioned so much and Section is almost >> copied from RFC 7248 causes a lot of confusion. >> >> What I understand is that this draft is addressing is non Layer 2 data >> center networks. VXLAN addresses Layer 2 data center networks and >> always assumes Ethernet frames in the payload. >> Virtual machines always generate Layer 2 frames. VXLAN addresses >> VM-to-VM communication. >> >> In general not all data center networks are Layer based, i.e. some are >> Layer 3 based and there are no VMs that's why VXLAN-GPE does not talk >> about VMs. >> >> I suggest that this point be clarified in the draft. >> > > The introduction of the draft states the following: > > "The VXLAN header does not specify the protocol > being encapsulated and therefore is currently limited to > encapsulating only Ethernet frame payloads." > > > " This document describes extending VXLAN to support additional payload > types beyond Ethernet frames.." > > Is this unclear? If so, what do you propose? >
The explanation is above in my mail. L2 based and L3 based data center networks are quite well known in nvo3, e.g. RFC 6820. So people would understand it. Behcet > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
