Thanks David for the information. Then standardizing three dataplane options makes me dissappointed.
Regards Lizhong On Jul 28, 2013 4:41 PM, "Black, David" <[email protected]> wrote: > Lizhong,**** > > ** ** > > We can certainly talk about what the WG will or won’t standardize, but**** > > (IMHO), it’s necessary to pay attention to what’s in use – this is a**** > > specific case of looking at “running code” in addition to “rough > consensus”.**** > > ** ** > > All three of those encapsulations are deployed and in use, today.**** > > ** ** > > Thanks, > --David**** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf > Of *Lizhong Jin > *Sent:* Thursday, July 25, 2013 11:43 AM > *To:* Thomas Narten > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [nvo3] Comment of draft-narten-nvo3-arch-00**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > 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
