> On May 5, 2015, at 12:52 PM, Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> On 5/4/2015 7:05 PM, Larry Kreeger (kreeger) wrote: >>> Hi Joe, >>> >>> Please see my response in this thread >>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/msg04612.html . >>> >>> Also, could you explain the problems that would be caused by indicating >>> IPv4/IPv6 directly rather than requiring implementations to look at two >>> places to determine this? >> >> 1. it accounts for only IPv4 and IPv6, not any subsequent values >> >> 2. it encourages the encapsulation layer to handle these two >> differently, when they should not be handled differently >> >> IP is a protocol. v4 and v6 are versions. > > +1 > > I think that Ethernet and NSH are not needed. NSH is not a protocol, > it is some abstract data. How NSH will be encapsulated is being > discussed in SFC WG. > So if the payload is only IP, then why do we need the next protocol field? > > Behcet
Next Protocol Ethernet type is needed for scenarios where you want to encapsulate Ethernet based protocols which do not use IP (i.e. VLAN, FCoE, etc). _William _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
