Inline.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 11:57 AM > To: Pankaj Garg <[email protected]> > Cc: Dino Farinacci <[email protected]>; Manish Kumar (manishkr) > <[email protected]>; Lucy Yong <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] RFC 7637 on NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using > Generic Routing Encapsulation > > > [PG] I don't think GUE provides flexibility that is needed for future > encapsulation. Network virtualization is mostly used with-in datacenters and > in such environments, flexibility is needed to change and innovate rapidly. > We need an encapsulation format that provides such flexibility and does not > tie our hands. > > Well, we have already defined seven extensions to GUE. AFAICT adding > these was quite straightforward none of these can break forward > compatibility, nor NIC offloads, and is amenable to efficient header parsing > in > both software and hardware. GUE also allows for private data in the header > section for a site or application to insert data with whatever format is > suitable > (for instance, if SPUD uses GUE format CBOR data could go here). But, if you > really do see an deficiency in this model that would "tie your hands" please > elaborate, we appreciate the feedback! [PG] Our network stack consists of multiple layers, where layers can be developed independently (and can even be from separate vendors). Using Geneve/NSH style TLV provides us flexibility of a non-conflicting private data space, where different layers can insert their own data on transmit and process that on reception. How would one achieve this flexibility in GUE? > > Thanks, > Tom _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
