> -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Kireeti > Kompella > 发送时间: 2013年7月23日 14:46 > 收件人: Xuxiaohu > 抄送: [email protected]; L3VPN; Yakov Rekhter; [email protected]; > UTTARO, JAMES > 主题: Re: The possibility of using global MPLS labels as VNIs ... for l3vpn > > Hi Xuxiaohu, > > Sorry for the previous empty email. > > On Jul 23, 2013, at 4:51, Xuxiaohu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The reason that I started this discussion is to make sure whether the > > Virtual > Network Context Identification contained in the data packet is REALLY required > to be globally unique in some cases. > > No. There's nothing useful that I know that one can do with global IDs in the > data plane that one cannot do with local IDs, and local IDs are easier to > allocate and manage. So, I'd be going the other way and advocate locally > significant VNIDs for VXLAN and NVGRE, not global IDs for VPNs. (And I do)
Hi Kireeti, I've ever heard that the major technical reason for some operators to prefer VXLAN or NVGRE to MAC-in-MPLS-in-IP as the encapsulation scheme is that the former provides global VNIDs in the data packets. Therefore, I want to know the concrete use cases where the global VNID is required. Now since you advocate locally significant VNIDs for VXLAN and NVGRE, would you please share your reason why not directly use the MAC-in-MPLS-in-IP format where the VNID (i.e., VPN label) is already locally significant? Best regards, Xiaohu > Kireeti
