Robert, When GRE encapsulation uses different SRC/DST addresses for different flows, it means that same OverlayBoundaryPoint needs multiple addresses. Does it also mean an IP prefix can be given to a OverlayBoundaryPoint? I guess for IPv6, there shouldn't be any issues, should it? (well I am not an IPv6 expert).
Linda > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Robert Raszuk > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 2:27 AM > To: Keshava A K > Cc: [email protected]; Xuxiaohu; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Facilitating the load-balancing of L2VPN/L3VPN > traffic over IP PSN using MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation// fwd: New Version > Notification for draft-xu-mpls-in-udp-00.txt > > > > If switches were to try to distribute GRE flows between two VTEPs > > that used a GRE encapsulation, all the traffic would be directed to > > use only one link within these Port Channels. > > Not true. GRE encapsulation is not mandated to use the same src/dst > addresses for all flows between given two end points. > > You do not need to parse deep into packet to enable good load balancing > hash across parallel links when you use GRE as an encapsulation > technology. > > And what is nice about IP encapsulation all GRE src/dst addresses can > be > naturally aggregated so from IGP point of view they still look like a > single prefix. > > Regards, > R. > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
