On 02/18/2014 01:17 PM, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal wrote: > Hi Lori, > > Thanks for the comments, see below. > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Lori Jakab <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
[...] > > Besides, please note that we may won't cover the same types that OF > > covers. We don't want to compete with OF, but rather to complement it. > > I don't think you would be competing with OF by specifying the same > match types as the ONF does, you would be using (implementing?) > OpenFlow, and that would lead to less fragmentation and more code reuse. > > > Don't get me wrong here. Maybe I explained myself poorly. I didn't want > to say that we need to cover different fields. What I meant to say is > that maybe we don't need to cover ALL the fields that OF covers. Perhaps > a subset of those is enough for LISP. Of course, in the future maybe we > see the need for covering more (all?) OF fields or maybe beyond OF ones. Understand. My main consideration here is that many (most?) SDN software packages today (for whatever definition of SDN) has support for OpenFlow (mostly 1.0). Hardware is also starting to support OpenFlow. So I think that simply from the implementation point of view you have an advantage if you just can reuse a versatile existing matching engine. > > > > It's about using the right tool for the job. OF is (generally > speaking) > > focused on L2, while LISP is (generally speaking) focused on L3. > That's > > why the 5-tuple makes more sense for LISP as a flow identifier than, > > let's say, ETH or ARP fields. Hope I had brought some light here ;) > > Well, OpenFlow is slowly adding support for L3 only flows, and LISP is > slowly adding support for L2 encaps. > > > That's why I said "generally speaking" ;) I thought so :) But I still wrote the comment because I think we should be forward looking! Thanks for the discussion, -Lori _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
