On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Michael Smith (michsmit) <[email protected]> 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), > or revive the pre-VXLAN L2 LISP draft. > Please see the technical objections that have been raised for VXLAN-GPE on this thread. Most of these will be applicable to VXLAN as well. If you don't think these objections are valid then we can have that discussion, but that should be on a separate thread as Matthew requested.
Tom _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
