On 7/25/16 8:52 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
I believe that others are in a similar position but opposite with regards to technical choices. The net result is that there are almost certain to be multiple formats in the wild regardless of what is decided here. Yes, that means letting the market decide rather than the IETF. I honestly don't necessarily see that as a negative since it means that it will be based on experience rather than theoretical arguments. I don't even think that it will cause more confusion or set back the industry given that timescales of ~5 years are being talked about for a new compromise encap if that were to come to be.
Coming from a different perspective (I'm one of the authors of VXLAN-GPE) I totally agree with the above.
For us the design goal was to maximize reuse of VXLAN logic, adding multiprotocol support, and achieve extensibility via shim layer (as done for the SFC use case with VXLAN-GPE + NSH).
Before we set off for a new encapsulation, I would like to make sure that there is a well grounded use case that cannot be addressed with the existing ones.
Fabio _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
