Hi Wim, I am not questioning that things can break. I am just asking that it would be great to document those stating specific reasons or given's app design assumptions.
Cheers, R. On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) < [email protected]> wrote: > Robert, I got surprised recently how many things break in such > environment and this is why I am reluctant to standardise this work. I also > don’t believe the people who have to fix the applications will even read > this work. > > From: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday 3 December 2013 10:54 > To: Wim Henderickx <[email protected]> > Cc: Pedro Roque Marques <[email protected]>, Thomas Morin < > [email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: on limitations of draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet > > Hi Wim, > > I think you are right that perhaps some Ethernet based applications may > break. But perhaps it is worth to observe that wast majority of other > applications may happily work on virtual subnet too. > > So maybe rather then stopping adoption those who are worried about some > specific applications not working in any of today's L2 emulations to > document those in a draft. > > For one it could be nice deployment guideline document to the operators > and for the second it may give hints to application developers to fix their > code :) > > Best, > R. > >
