Hi Xuxiaohu, 2013-07-18, Xuxiaohu: > > Till now, it seem that the only remaining technical reason for some > people to prefer VXLAN/NVGRE encapsulation format to > MAC-in-MPLS-in-IP encapsulation format for network virtualization > overlay is the former has global VNIs while the latter doesn't have. > If this reason is true, why can't we consider the possibility of > using global MPLS labels to achieve the same goal?
IMHO, examining *why* someone would want a "global VNI" should be the start of the discussion, rather than possible solutions. I could possibly see at least one reason *not* to try to have a dedicated identifier in the dataplane common for all flows of "a VPN". It is not related to the encapsulation, but to the fact that RFC4364 has, in fact, no strict notion of "a VPN", but only of how connectivity is established betweens set of VRFs. -Thomas _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
