++1 This echos what I said yesterday at the interim meeting. There need to be requirements directed at dataplane encapsulations including extensibility -- as opposed to requirements on CP and operators to conform to the encapsulation of the day.
On Friday, September 21, 2012, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > Kireeti, > > > > Kireeti, > > > > > >> 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 > > > > > > I certainly agree with you that there are more than enough L3-in-L3 > > > encaps that are IETF standard. > > > > > > But do you think we have a shortage of L2-in-L3 encaps that are > > > IETF standards ? > > > > Not at all! Sadly, there seems to be more interest in coming up > > with new encaps than in coming up with a control plane that can > > actually deal with the problems of large scale multi-tenant data > > centers. However, taking these new encaps as a pragmatic reality, > > having a single control plane that can signal across all of them > > is a Good Thing. > > > > Just to be clear, these new encaps are not yet IETF standards (but > > it seem s likely that some of them will be.) > > I would like the WG chairs (and the appropriate ADs) to comment > on what criteria will be used to decide which these encaps be > IETF standards. > > Yakov. > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
