The IETF should not encourage more options. Standards are suppose to unify interoperability not cause more combinations.
And every decade IETF picks 3 options. Just think if the IETF could produce fast? ;-) Stop the bleeding, Dino > On Jul 26, 2016, at 9:26 AM, Michael Smith (michsmit) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
