I'd like to have people focus on the key point of this thread.

Are there serious technical objections (and specifically what are they) to
moving forward with VXLAN-GPE as the standards-track protocol?

Are there serious technical objections (and specifically what are they) to
moving forward with GENEVE as the standards-track protocol?

Are there serious technical objections (and specifically what are they) to
moving forward with GUE as the standards-track protocol?

We need to capture any relevant objections.  So far, there's been some
discussion on extensibility - with Tom Herbert providing concrete concerns.

I have concluded that almost all the authors would prefer to have no
standards track solution if they can't guarantee that theirs is that
standard.

I do hear concerns about whether a decision will be too late.   I think
that a decision can only be helpful.   It goes back to when is the best
time to plant a tree - with the answer of 20 years ago or now.

Regards,
Alia


On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Naoki Matsuhira <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
> On 2016/07/21 23:56, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) wrote:
>
>> WG
>>
>> There was a discussion in the NVO3 WG meeting in Berlin following strong
>> advice from our Area Director that we need to come to a consensus on
>> converging on a common encapsulation. Two sets of questions were asked:
>> (1) Should the WG move forward with one standards track encap?
>> (2) For a given encap, do you have significant technical objections?
>>
>
> I want to inform to this mailing list that I proposed ME6E-FP and ME6E-PR
> at the yokohama meeting. I also have proposal M46E-FP and M46E-PR (past
> called SA46T).
>
> These encapsulation technologies are based on address mapping. ME6E use
> IPv6 address which mapping MAC address, and M46E use IPv6 address which
> mapping IPv4 address.
>
> I understand too many encapsulation technologies, however these my
> proposal are simple, and may contribute to the Internet.
>
> I believe address mapping approach is unique, so I want to propose again.
>
> sorry not the answer to the question.
>
> Naoki Matsuhira
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nvo3 mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

Reply via email to