> Dino, > > I'm curious - what is your basis for "cost”? (1) Time to market due to complexity in chip design. (2) More are used for logic versus needed SRAM space for table entries. (3) Additional latency in processing packets.
> The overheads in these protocols is as low as any other currently in > widespread use. Not at the data-plane. No one processes IPv4 options except for the RA option. And that is why IPv4 goes fast. And IPv6 is following this path as well but there are new proposals out that will slow it down due to more processing. When I say “slow” here I mean the cost-effectiveness as described in the 3 bullets above. Dino > > Joe > > On 7/21/2016 11:24 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>> 1) Does anyone have a significant technical objection to selecting Geneve >>> as the single NVO3 Standards track document? Please be as concrete and >>> detailed as possible as to your technical objection. >> I object to Geneve because it will not be a cost-effective solution in all >> types of products it will be needed in. >> >>> 2) Does anyone have a significant technical objection to selecting >>> VXLAN-GPE as the single NVO3 Standards track document? Please be as >>> concrete and detailed as possible as to your technical objection. >> I support VXLAN-GPE because it can work in existing VXLAN deployments in >> compatibility mode as well as allowing the introduction of new (already >> known) features. >> >>> 3)Does anyone have a significant technical objection to selecting GUE as >>> the single NVO3 Standards track document? Please be as concrete and >>> detailed as possible as to your technical objection. >> I object to GUE because it will not be a cost-effective solution in all >> types of products it will be needed in. >> >> Dino >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nvo3 mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
