On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Thomas Narten <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Lizhong. > > > After reading this draft, I find it still combines many possible options > > (e.g, dataplane). Hope to see a draft with much more clear opinion in > next > > version. > > Not sure what you mean here when you say "combines many possible > options (e.g., dataplane)." > [Lizhong] In section 10, I see at least three dataplane ecapsulation approach (vxlan, nvgre, mpls over gre). I hope the WG will not standardize so many kinds of encapsulations, otherwise it would be a nightmare for vendors. The arch document should weight among the candidates, and gives out the standardization direction, or at least should point out the reason why we need three encapsulations. >From the market point, I haven't heard of any potential NIC supporting MPLS over GRE. Anyone heard of that? Regards Lizhong > One thing that became apparently in writing this document is that the > WG hasn't actually (on the record) decided number of things. To me, > some of the decisions are obvious (in the sense that they make sense > to me and others I've talked to), but that is not the same as the WG > actually weighing in making a choice. > > One of the key differences between the architecture document and the > framework document is that the framework is a bit more open ended in > terms of possible approaches, whereas the architecture will reflect > the architectural choices the WG has made for NVO3. > > So, an important goal in putting together this strawman is to get > feedback and see where folk seem to say "yes", and where they say > "actually, we should do something different..." > > I'll respond to your specific questions in separate threads, so that > it's a bit easier to track/follow the issues. > > Thomas > >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
