On 13/04/2012 04:06, Kireeti Kompella wrote:
Hi Yakov,
Rather than arguing about layers, I think it would be much better
to just explicitly spell out that "NVO3 will develop an approach...
that uses encapsulation over IP or MPLS enabled IP packet switched
networks (PSN)."
That's even better ... and since it was the approach taken by another
"overlay" technology, namely PWE3, it seems fitting.
What makes me nervous is that in the PWE3 case we spent a lot
of time working on an PW/IP and PW/MPLS until the market
eventually decided in favour of PW/MPLS and PW/IP for most
practical purposes died out.
I do not know whether we need IP, MPLS or both in this case,
and unfortunately I am not sure how we get firm objective
evidence. However we need to be careful that on the one
hand the charter does not preempt an objective decision, and
on the other hand does not create a mechanism whereby the
WG spends a lot of time on technology to support minority
deployments.
The specific problem is with the ambiguity of the word
"or" since it may bind us to doing both even if the
evidence supports the need for only one (of type currently
unknown), or it may force us to choose when the market
is split and we need to support both.
My hope was that "layer 3" could be taken to include
IP and MPLS in such a way as to allow us to make a
more considered decision of {IP, MPLS, IP and MPLS}
when we have more evidence.
- Stewart
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
