Users already have to deal with multiple solutions for network overlays in the form of VXLAN and NVGRE. Neither of which is listed as an option here. Picking 1 more solution or 3 more solutions won¹t improve that.
On 7/25/16, 6:57 PM, "nvo3 on behalf of Tom Herbert" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> 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. >> >I would like to meet the user who thinks having multiple interoperable >solutions that do pretty make the same thing is a good idea. > >_______________________________________________ >nvo3 mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
