Sounds good to me too. To clarify, you 'just' Plan to support the encapsulation format and control will be still the OF controller ?
-- Holger Winkelmann Travelping GmbH +49-171-5594745 On 08.09.2011, at 07:36, Justin Pettit <[email protected]> wrote: > Right, I agree. I was just referring to the ability to use its UDP tunneling > format to get through devices that don't like GRE. We're also planning to > support a mode where VXLAN is a virtual port, like GRE, and traffic that is > sent out it will be encapsulated (and decapsulated on receive). > > --Justin > > > On Sep 7, 2011, at 10:03 PM, Nicky Fatr wrote: > >> Yes, VXLAN tunnel header is a good proposal, but for control plane >> there is serve limitation: it depend on physical network multicast for >> MAC learning. In OVS, central ovsdb controlled MAC address propagation >> is a better choice. >> >> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Justin Pettit <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Sep 7, 2011, at 9:01 AM, Nicky Fatr wrote: >>> >>>> I don't think that TRILL/802.1AQ L2 over L2 is a good option for large >>>> scale deployment. L2 over L3 instead is more scalable, eliminating >>>> comlexity of physical network. >>>> >>>> maybe we can expect L2 over UDP in some future release, for UDP is >>>> more friendly than GRE in some networking configuration. >>> >>> You can already do L2-over-L3 with CAPWAP. It doesn't support a >>> configurable context identifier (key), but a patch has been provided by >>> Valient Gough and Simon Horman that adds it. We're also looking at >>> supporting VXLAN, which was recently announced: >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-00 >>> >>> --Justin >>> >>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
