On 7/26/2016 11:59 AM, Michael Smith (michsmit) wrote: > Agreed. Given that considerable time has past since the initial decision > and as long as we are re-visiting it, why not adopt VXLAN ? It has seen > considerable deployment and implementation. Its format is compatible with > LISP which serves to provide a common frame format for L2 and L3 overlays. > One issue raised in the meeting was that VXLAN is an independent track > RFC. I may be naïve, but this seems fairly easy to remedy. Worst case, > call it something else, change the UDP port number (I’m not aware of any > hardware implementations that couldn’t handle changing the port number),
All recent assignments are *required* to support in-band versioning, so at worst a version number bump would be sufficient. Joe _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
