On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Fabio Maino <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. That is why we are looking for the technical objections - to determine what there is consensus to resolve and what there is consensus to not resolve. Do please read RFC 7282, if you haven't yet. Regards, Alia > Fabio > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
