> 1. Since TS is the end of the network, flow (e.g, 5 tuple) based VN > forwarding would bring much network flexibility. The L2/L3 VN service is > the traditional service, but I believe the VN should have the capability to > provide a flow based forwarding service.
I'm not at all sure what it would mean for the VN itself (that is NVO3) to provide "flow based forwarding service". What did you have in mind? What benefits would that have? In my mind, how traffic is forwarded by the underlay network is entirely the business of the underlay. Flow based forwarding would be fine, if desirable. But, that would be completely orthogonal to NVO3 and the virtual network itself. I don't see right off the need for NVO3 itself to be involved in this. Thomas _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
