On May 23, 2012, at 1:20 PM, Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin) wrote: > Peter, > We were not trying to exclude any solutions, we tried to really focus on what > the requirements should be. Note that the text does not exclude NVGRE > anyhow.. We said "...and/or tunnelling methods" and I believe there was a > NVGRE thread on this list where the authors discussed how this can be done > using tunneling header. There was also some hall discussion in IETF on how > this can be done with part of a GRE key. >
One way is described in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5640 in the context of tunneling for softwires. Thanks, -- Carlos. > On the other hand we would like to hear from cloud providers on this: i.e. Is > it a MUST or a SHOULD? > Florin > > On May 23, 2012, at 8:38 AM, "AshwoodsmithPeter" > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In section 3.3.2.1 LAG and ECMP >> >> >> >> “encpsulation headers and/or tunneling methods MUST contain a ‘entropy >> field’ or ‘entropy label’ “ >> >> >> >> This of course explicitly excludes NVGRE. I suppose for VXLAN the UDP >> SourcePort would be considered the entropy field. >> >> >> >> Was it the intention to exclude NVGRE? >> >> >> >> Peter >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nvo3 mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
