We had a similar discussion a while back and there was general agreement to purge section 9 from NSH draft to avoid picking transports. Seems like it did not make the last revision. Filed a ticket to track the removal: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/sfc/trac/ticket/17
Regards, Surendra. -----Original Message----- From: Paul Quinn (paulq) Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 6:01 AM To: Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> Cc: Surendra Kumar (smkumar) <[email protected]>; Dino Farinacci <[email protected]>; Bottorff, Paul <[email protected]>; [email protected]; <[email protected]> <[email protected]>; Lucy Yong <[email protected]>; Alia Atlas <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Larry Kreeger (kreeger) <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [nvo3] [sfc] comment on draft-kumar-sfc-nsh-udp-transport > On Nov 6, 2015, at 4:07 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am having trouble understanding the conversation. > We have a clear agreement that we are not going to standardize on transport > for NSH. > And even more that we are not going to pick "one". > I agree. It seems that we are trying to solve a problem that doesn't need to be solved. If an operator wants to use UDP/NSH in their environment, so be it. Similarly, if they chose to use VXLAN-GPE or something else, so be it. NSH doesn't care, and nor should we. > So yes, this draft describes a valid and useful way to transport NSH. there > are many such. > > Yours, > Joel _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
