Hi, For a number of reasons, including the current "vigorous discussion" on multiple encaps for L2-in-L3, I would STRONGLY URGE the group to not go there.
There are more than enough L3-in-L3 encaps already: sufficient unto the day .... Regards, Kireeti. On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:10 AM, Xuxiaohu <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all,**** > > ** ** > > It’s well-known that MPLS encapsulation can be used in both Layer2 VPN > overlay (e.g., MAC-in-MPLS-in-GRE) and Layer3 VPN overlay (e.g., > IP-in-MPLS-in-GRE). Meanwhile, although NVGRE is targeted only for Layer2 > VPN overlay (i.e., MAC over IP overlay) scheme at present, the protocol > type field in the GRE header however provides a possibility of supporting > Layer3 VPN overlay (i.e., IP over IP overlay) if needed in the future. > However, as per the encapsulation format described in the current version > of VXLAN draft, there is no such protocol type field in the VXLAN header > yet. Hence I suggest the VXLAN co-authors could consider using some > reserved bits as the protocol type field. In this way, the VXLAN > encapsulation header could also be applicable to the Layer3 VPN overlay > scheme if needed in the future.**** > > ** ** > > Best regards,**** > > Xiaohu**** > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > -- Kireeti
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
